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  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:   Mon, 4 Mar 2019 09:43:46 +0100
From:   Miquel Raynal <>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <>
        Boris Brezillon <>,
        Brian Norris <>,, Marek Vasut <>,
        Richard Weinberger <>,
        David Woodhouse <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/10] mtd: rawnand: denali: use more precise timeout

Hi Masahiro,

Masahiro Yamada <> wrote on Tue, 12 Feb
2019 16:12:57 +0900:

> Currently, wait_for_completion_timeout() is always passed in the
> hard-coded msec_to_jiffies(1000). There is no specific reason for
> 1000 msec, but it was chosen to be long enough.
> With the exec_op() conversion, NAND_OP_WAITRDY_INSTR provides more
> precise timeout value, depending on the preceding command. Let's use
> it (+ 100 msec) to bail out earlier in error case. The 100 msec extra
> is in case the heavy load on the system.
> I am still keeping the hard-coded values for other higher level hooks
> such as page_read, page_write, etc. We know the value of tR, tPROG, but
> we have unknowledge about the data transfer speed of the DMA engine.
> Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <>

I really am not convinced by this change. Please just define a timeout
big enough for most cases (1000 is okay) and use it systematically.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists