linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] s390: vfio-ap: remove unnecessary calls to disable queue interrupts

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: <ee41fd9f-6ba3-3f7d-7715-e5fe3a6d52f1@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Tue, 3 Sep 2019 09:37:45 +0200
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To:     Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        freude@...ibm.com, cohuck@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        frankja@...ux.ibm.com, jjherne@...ux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] s390: vfio-ap: remove unnecessary calls to disable
 queue interrupts



On 30.08.19 18:02, Halil Pasic wrote:

> From: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:03:42 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] s390: vfio-ap: fix warning reset not completed
> 
> The intention seems to be to warn once when we don't wait enough for the
> reset to complete. Let's use the right retry counter to accomplish that
> semantic.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> index e3bcb43..dd07ebf 100644
> --- a/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> +++ b/drivers/s390/crypto/vfio_ap_ops.c
> @@ -1144,7 +1144,7 @@ int vfio_ap_mdev_reset_queue(unsigned int apid, unsigned int apqi,
>  				msleep(20);
>  				status = ap_tapq(apqn, NULL);
>  			}
> -			WARN_ON_ONCE(retry <= 0);
> +			WARN_ON_ONCE(retry2 <= 0);
>  			return 0;
>  		case AP_RESPONSE_RESET_IN_PROGRESS:
>  		case AP_RESPONSE_BUSY:

I think this patch alone makes certainly sense. Can you send that separately?
Or even better remove the retry parameter of that function. All users seem
to always pass in 1 as retry.