linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] gpu: host1x: Fix syncpoint wait return value

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20130526101243.GB1652@mithrandir>
Date:	Sun, 26 May 2013 12:12:44 +0200
From:	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To:	Arto Merilainen <amerilainen@...dia.com>
Cc:	airlied@...ux.ie, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	tbergstrom@...dia.com, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] gpu: host1x: Fix syncpoint wait return value

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:49:44PM +0300, Arto Merilainen wrote:
> Syncpoint wait returned EAGAIN if it was called with zero timeout.
> This patch modifies the function to return ETIMEDOUT.

This description is a bit redundant, because it repeats in prose what
the code does. I'd rather see a description of why the change is
necessary.

Thinking about it, maybe it would be good to have two separate error
codes. Keeping -EAGAIN for the case where a zero timeout was passed
doesn't sound too bad to differentiate it from the case where a non-
zero timeout was passed and it actually timed out. What do you think?

Thierry

Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped