linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: smartpqi: Replace semaphore sync_request

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: <3504862.DmmQhD8X6k@wuerfel>
Date:   Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:10:49 +0200
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
Cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        kevin Barnett <kevin.barnett@...rosemi.com>,
        Don Brace <don.brace@...rosemi.com>,
        Scott Benesh <scott.benesh@...rosemi.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scsi: smartpqi: Replace semaphore sync_request_sem with mutex

On Monday, October 24, 2016 3:34:27 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> Hi Arnd
> 
> On 20 October 2016 at 14:36, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 2:24:01 PM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> >> Semaphores are going away in the future, so replace the semaphore
> >> sync_request_sem with the a mutex lock. timeout_msecs is not used
> >> for the lock sync_request_sem, so remove the timed locking too.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
> >
> > The patch looks correct to me, but I think if you remove the support
> > for handling timeouts, you should update the prototype of
> > pqi_submit_raid_request_synchronous to no longer pass the timeout
> > argument in the first place.
> 
> But we still need "timeout_msecs" in a call to
> pqi_submit_raid_request_synchronous_with_io_request()
> 
> drivers/scsi/smartpqi/smartpqi_init.c +3484

Why? If it's always zero, we can remove that too.

	Arnd