linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mwifiex: Try waking the firmware until we get an interrupt

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]

Date:   Fri, 1 Oct 2021 00:16:23 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Jonas Dreßler <verdre@...d.nl>
Cc:     Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Ganapathi Bhat <ganapathi017@...il.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>,
        Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Tsuchiya Yuto <kitakar@...il.com>,
        linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        Pali Rohár <pali@...nel.org>,
        Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>,
        Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mwifiex: Try waking the firmware until we get an
 interrupt

On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 11:07:09PM +0200, Jonas Dreßler wrote:
> On 9/30/21 10:58 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 08:04:00PM +0200, Jonas Dreßler wrote:

...

> > Second, what is the problem with having one write more or less?
> > Your current code doesn't guarantee this either. It only decreases
> > probability of such scenario. Am I wrong?
> 
> Indeed my approach just decreases the probability and we sometimes end up
> writing twice to wakeup the card, but it would kinda bug me if we'd always
> do one write too much.
> 
> Anyway, if you still prefer the read_poll_timeout() solution I'd be alright
> with that of course.

Yes, it will make code cleaner.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko