linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 11/11] sound/oxygen_io: take msecs_to_jiffies

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:38 +0300
From:	Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
To:	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
	Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] sound/oxygen_io: take msecs_to_jiffies_min into
 use

On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:00 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> At Fri, 10 May 2013 15:13:29 +0300,
> Imre Deak wrote:
> > 
> > Use msecs_to_jiffies_min instead of open-coding the same.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c |    2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > index 521eae4..132ecbe 100644
> > --- a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > +++ b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int oxygen_ac97_wait(struct oxygen *chip, unsigned int mask)
> >  	wait_event_timeout(chip->ac97_waitqueue,
> >  			   ({ status |= oxygen_read8(chip, OXYGEN_AC97_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
> >  			      status & mask; }),
> > -			   msecs_to_jiffies(1) + 1);
> > +			   msecs_to_jiffies_min(1));
> 
> This would change the behavior, I guess.  

Not to my understanding, the new macro should end up doing the same
thing.

> (Though, I'm not sure whether the original code was intentional.)

Well, I only assumed that.. But using wait_event_timeout() without the
+1 would make little sense to me. In that case we may not wait at all
for the condition to become true, if we are close to the next scheduling
clock tick.

> And, isn't msecs_to_jiffies_min(1) identical with msecs_to_jiffies(1)?

No, it should be one more in value.

--Imre

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/