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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 20:23:27 +0100 From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> To: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>, Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Soheil Hassas Yeganeh <soheil.kdev@...il.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Shuo Chen <shuochen@...gle.com>, linux-man <linux-man@...r.kernel.org>, Willem de Bruijn <willemb@...gle.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] epoll: add nsec timeout support with epoll_pwait2 On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 5:01 PM Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 3:13 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 9:13 PM Willem de Bruijn > > <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 10:45 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote: > Thanks for the suggestion. > > I do have an initial patchset. As expected, it does involve quite a > bit of code churn to pass slack through the callers. I'll take a look > at your suggestion to simplify it. > > As is, the patchset is not ready to send to the list for possible > merge. In the meantime, I did push the patchset to github at > https://github.com/wdebruij/linux/commits/epoll-nstimeo-1 . I can send > a version marked RFC to the list if that's easier. Looks all good to me, just two small things I noticed that you can address before sending the new series: * The div_u64_rem() in ep_timeout_to_timespec() looks wrong, as you are actually dividing a 'long' that does not need it. * In "epoll: wire up syscall epoll_pwait2", the alpha syscall has the wrong number, it should be 110 higher than the others, not 109. > Btw, the other change, to convert epoll implementation to timespec64 > before adding the syscall, equally adds some code churn compared to > patch v3. But perhaps the end state is cleaner and more consistent. Right, that's what I meant. If it causes too much churn, don't worry about it it. Arndd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists