linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/15] i2c: use 'time_left' with 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: <cscisecgo547dngzcpmcvertywekxtctyxv6hwhnmi5dq4azh2@4lpq6a4qga3s>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2024 02:07:45 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...nel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org, imx@...ts.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, 
	linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/15] i2c: use 'time_left' with wait_for_*

Hi Wolfram,

On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 10:35:52PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> There is a confusing pattern in the kernel to use a variable named 'timeout' to
> store the result of wait_for_*() causing patterns like:
> 
>         timeout = wait_for_completion_timeout(...)
>         if (!timeout) return -ETIMEDOUT;
> 
> with all kinds of permutations. Use 'time_left' as a variable to make the code
> self explaining.
> 
> This is the I2C part of a tree-wide series. The rest of the patches can
> be found here (slightly WIP):
> 
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wsa/linux.git i2c/time_left
> 
> Because these patches are generated, they need manual audit. So, I will
> send them step by step. This is part 1 and also a call for opinions if
> this is a desirable change. But at least in the I2C realm, I really want
> to have it proper.
> 
> Build bot is happy with these patches and I also compile tested them
> (except two). No functional changes intended.

It all looks good, I will give people a few days more for reviews
and comments and then I'll take it in.

Andi