linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Use completions instead of semaphores

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: <20211016071201.GU8429@kadam>
Date:   Sat, 16 Oct 2021 10:12:01 +0300
From:   Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
To:     "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] staging: r8188eu: Use completions instead of
 semaphores

On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 08:43:32AM +0200, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> 2) The second semaphore came to my attention while working on the first and 
> trying to understand what rtw_cmd_thread() is meant for. It is there for very 
> different reasons. There is only one relation between them, that is that they 
> are used into the same function. Nothing else.
> 
> So I prefer to write a second commit message (in patch 2/3) that explains 
> what the semaphore does and why it is better to replace it with a condition 
> variable. Obviously, this "why are you changing it?" has a different answer 
> with respect of what I say in patch 1/3.
> 

I don't think you're correct, but I will wait for you patch and look
again.

regards,
dan carpenter