linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] serial: 8250_dw: Rework ->serial

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: <CAHp75VevfptcsTTkFvCRsJRxuKX6aJ2zQ5LyH0O8wP+aB4xXHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 Jun 2022 11:33:04 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] serial: 8250_dw: Rework ->serial_out() LCR write
 retry logic

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 10:47 AM Ilpo Järvinen
<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2022, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 3:43 PM Ilpo Järvinen
> > <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently dw8250_verify_write() (was dw8250_check_lcr()) nullifies the
> > > benefit from differentiated ->serial_out() by having big if tree to
> > > select correct write type.
> > >
> > > Rework the logic such that the LCR write can be retried within the
> > > relevant ->serial_out() handler:
> > >   1. Move retries counter on the caller level and pass as pointer to
> > >      dw8250_verify_write()
> > >   2. Make dw8250_verify_write() return bool
> > >   3. Retry the write on caller level (if needed)
> >
> > I'm wondering if it's possible to utilize one of iopoll.h macro here
> > instead of copying retries and that not-so-obvious IO poll write.
>
> Eh, are you suggesting I should do write as a side-effect inside one of
> the iopoll.h macros? Because those available seem to only read?
>
> Or should I create another macro there which writes too?

It seems to me that it would be a macro on top of iopoll's one which
will take an op read and op write arguments depending on the case.
Note, for that special case you would need a custom write op instead
of simple __raw_writeq().

Try and if it looks better, convert, otherwise it would be nice to
hear why it won't fly in your opinion.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko