linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/4] eventpoll: support busy poll per epoll instance

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: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 12:23:23 -0800
From: Joe Damato <jdamato@...tly.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	chuck.lever@...cle.com, jlayton@...nel.org,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, brauner@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
	davem@...emloft.net, alexander.duyck@...il.com,
	sridhar.samudrala@...el.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
	weiwan@...gle.com, David.Laight@...LAB.COM, arnd@...db.de,
	sdf@...gle.com, amritha.nambiar@...el.com,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"open list:FILESYSTEMS (VFS and infrastructure)" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/4] eventpoll: support busy poll per epoll
 instance

On Wed, Feb 07, 2024 at 12:11:24PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 11:14:08 -0800 Joe Damato wrote:
> > > Why do we need u64 for usecs? I think u16 would do, and u32 would give
> > > a very solid "engineering margin". If it was discussed in previous
> > > versions I think it's worth explaining in the commit message.  
> > 
> > In patch 4/4 the value is limited to U32_MAX, but if you prefer I use a u32
> > here instead, I can make that change.
> 
> Unless you have a clear reason not to, I think using u32 would be more
> natural? If my head math is right the range for u32 is 4096 sec,
> slightly over an hour? I'd use u32 and limit it to S32_MAX.

OK, that seems fine. Sorry for the noob question, but since that represents
a fucntional change to patch 4/4, I believe I would need to drop Jiri's
Reviewed-by, is that right?