linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] serial: core: Store fifo timeout again

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: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 19:20:18 +0000
From: Michael Pratt <mcpratt@...me>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, Wander Lairson Costa <wander@...hat.com>, Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, Vamshi Gajjela <vamshigajjela@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] serial: core: Store fifo timeout again

Hi Andy,

On Tuesday, April 16th, 2024 at 14:58, Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:

> ...
> 
> > + if (port->fifosize > 1)
> > + port->timeout = uart_fifo_timeout(port);
> 
> 
> else
> port->timeout = port->frame_time;
> 

Consistent with what I said in the other reply, the only reason that
I have an if statement here, is to avoid doing extra math for devices
without a fifo, as a specifically calculated timeout value would be useless
in those cases.

However, if you don't like the 10 ms default timeout, perhaps port->frame_time
could actually be a more reasonable default value? That is, provided that we have a process
for calculating the proper value already in place...

> 
> --
> With Best Regards,
> Andy Shevchenko

Thanks for taking a look :D

--
MCP