linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at high priority

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CA+ASDXMpk=QsTxeAmL-Eir242HC2fzbi8ENACMi3H27o63KOGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 3 Apr 2019 10:55:22 -0700
From:   Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
To:     Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>,
        Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>,
        Alexandru M Stan <amstan@...omium.org>,
        "open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
        Ryan Case <ryandcase@...omium.org>,
        Randall Spangler <rspangler@...omium.org>,
        Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
        Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/chrome: cros_ec_spi: Transfer messages at
 high priority

On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:49 AM Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:04 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> > Does anybody know what the definition of "too long" is for the phrase
> > "Don't queue works which can run for too long" in the documentation?
...
> So I think the summary is that I'm back to being convinced that the
> "system_highpri_wq" should be OK.

Makes sense.

> > > +       wait_for_completion(&params.completion);
> >
> > I think flush_workqueue() was discussed and rejected, but what about
> > flush_work()? Then you don't have to worry about the rest of the
> > contents of the workqueue -- just your own work--and I think you could
> > avoid the 'completion'.
...
> Thanks, I'll do that in v3 assuming someone doesn't convince me to
> switch back to a private workqueue.

You can do flush_work() in either case :) Then, if for some reason you
start queueing up other work on your private workqueue, you still
won't have to worry about inter-'work' dependencies.

Brian