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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150922172919.GK30445@sirena.org.uk>
Date:	Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:29:19 -0700
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Jean-Michel Hautbois <jean-michel.hautbois@...-labs.com>
Cc:	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: spi-imx: wait_for_completion should timeout even in non-DMA
 transfer cases

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:08:55AM +0200, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote:
> 2015-09-19 19:56 GMT+02:00 Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>:

> > A calculated timeout is probably best.

> Well, it depends...
> If you have a 20MHz clock, then you can transfer a byte in 4µs.
> As most of the time pio_transfer is used for 8 to 32 bytes max, it
> would be irrelevant to use such a small timeout.
> I can obviously do it, but not sure if using a small (say, 100ms)
> timeout would not be better.

You want a minimum threashold, yes, but you also need to be able toc ope
with larger transfers too so need to be able to raise that where
appropriate.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ