linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] i2c: tegra: Support atomic transfers

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]

Message-ID: <86f71bfe-7d17-0bf4-edda-13c84301a598@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 14 Jan 2020 01:52:12 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Jonathan Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
        Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...dia.com>,
        Mikko Perttunen <cyndis@...si.fi>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/8] i2c: tegra: Support atomic transfers

14.01.2020 01:03, Wolfram Sang пишет:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2020 at 08:14:26PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> System shutdown may happen with interrupts being disabled and in this case
>> I2C core rejects transfers if atomic transfer isn't supported by driver.
> 
> Well, not quite. The core complains about it nowadays, but does not
> reject messages. It will try the same behaviour as before. It will just
> inform the user that somethings is tried which may not work. I probably
> should update the error message printed saying that the transfer is
> still tried.

Indeed, now I'm recalling noticing that the transfer actually should
happen despite of the error message, but then completely forgot to
update the commit's message. I can update the message and send out v5,
if you're thinking that it's worthwhile to do.

>> There were several occurrences where I found my Nexus 7 completely
>> discharged despite of being turned off and then one day I spotted this in
>> the log:
> 
> Given my reasoning above, that should have happened before the warning
> was printed as well? Because same behaviour. I'd be surprised if there
> was a change...

Pretty sure that it was happening before, but I wasn't paying much
attention back then.