linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5651: use msleep for large delays

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, 11 Jan 2017 18:59:52 +0000
From:   Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
        Bard Liao <bardliao@...ltek.com>,
        Oder Chiou <oder_chiou@...ltek.com>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5651: use msleep for large delays

On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:06:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:06:45PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:59:26PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > If you're doing conversions like this I'd expect us to be picking the
> > > lower number rather than the higher number - people are saying "wait for
> > > at least X and at most Y" and msleep() is "wait for at least X" so we
> > > should be picking X.
> 
> > useleep_range() sets the timer to max and only if there happens to be a
> > timer between min and max uses that - so the mean of runs is generally
> > a bit above max. E.g.
> 
> Yes, but as fairly recently discussed somewhere on the lists (and IIRC
> actually fixed) approximately no users expect or want that behaviour -
> it's a really confusing interface given that sleep functions almost
> always have a "delay up until X" interface and interfaces that can wake
> things up earlier than the expected delay generally flag that condition.
> The applications for the "delay for X but it's OK to wake me up this
> much earlier" are really quite limited.  If you look at the conversions
> that were done to usleep_range() you'll notice that most of them follow
> this pattern and had their delays extended in the process.

True its an odd behavior - the point just was to change the actual behavior
as little from current state as one might expect. Anywa - will fix it up 
then and resend - in this particular case it really makes little 
difference - assuming that both the minimum and maximum value were 
suitable to ensure that the writes had compled or it was actually a failure.

thx!
hofrat