linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: dmatest: timeout value of -1 should specify infinite wait

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190613111242.GE9160@vkoul-mobl.Dlink>
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:42:42 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Gary R Hook <ghook@....com>
Cc:     "Hook, Gary" <Gary.Hook@....com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: dmatest: timeout value of -1 should specify
 infinite wait

On 04-06-19, 16:47, Gary R Hook wrote:

> Well, I was uncomfortable with documentation that didn't match behavior.

That is the right way :)
> 
> I see two choices (and I just chose one to start a conversation):
> 
> 1) Accept this patch, with an infinite timeout, or
> 2) Leave the data type alone, but change the description to state that 
> timeout values up to hex 0xFFFFFFFF / decimal 4294967295 can be used, 
> emulating an "infinite" wait. A very long wait that eventually pops a 
> timer is probably preferable. I don't think there are any conversion 
> issues since the jiffy parameter to wait_event_freezable_timeout() is 
> converted to a long. I could be wrong about that.
> 
> I'm happy to go with option (2). Please suggest a course of action.

That looks sensible to me as well

Thanks

-- 
~Vinod