linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: PCC: replace wait_for

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: <20220921154737.az3d4ndxs3u3zwbl@bogus>
Date:   Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:47:37 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Huisong Li <lihuisong@...wei.com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        rafael@...nel.org, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
        wanghuiqiang@...wei.com, huangdaode@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ACPI: PCC: replace wait_for_completion()

On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 05:44:59PM +0800, Huisong Li wrote:
> Currently, the function waiting for completion of mailbox operation is
> 'wait_for_completion()'.  The PCC method will be permanently blocked if
> this mailbox message fails to execute. So this patch replaces it with
> 'wait_for_completion_timeout()'. And set the timeout interval to an
> arbitrary retries on top of nominal to prevent the remote processor is
> slow to respond to PCC commands.
>

Sounds good to me. The only concern(may be not serious) is what happens
if we receive response from the platform after the timeout. I have tested
for that in non ACPI non PCC context. I don't have a setup to trigger that
with ACPI PCC + this patch to test. Other than that, I am fine with this:

Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep