linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] iio: envelope-detector: ADC driver based on a DAC and a comparator

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]

Date:   Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:06:29 +0100 (CET)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Daniel Baluta <daniel.baluta@...el.com>,
        Slawomir Stepien <sst@...zta.fm>, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/8] iio: envelope-detector: ADC driver based on a
 DAC and a comparator

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2016-11-08 22:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > I don't think you need extra race handling with that, but I might be wrong
> > as usual.
> 
> There's obviously no way to determine which of the timeout or the
> interrupt that happens first without some race handling, so I don't
> know what you mean? If the timeout happens first, there is also a
> need to handle late hits from the irq that might come in during the
> preparation for the next step in the binary search. It gets messy
> quickly compared to the simplicity of the current implementation.

Gah, forgot about that timeout thingy. Fair enough.

Feel free to add an 

Acked-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Thanks,

	tglx