linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] firmware: coreboot: loader for Linux-owned SMI handler

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aFFT7g8w4kTJZ-1w@cyber-t14sg4>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 13:39:26 +0200
From: Michal Gorlas <michal.gorlas@...ements.com>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Tzung-Bi Shih <tzungbi@...nel.org>,
	Julius Werner <jwerner@...omium.org>, marcello.bauer@...ements.com,
	chrome-platform@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/3] firmware: coreboot: loader for Linux-owned SMI
 handler

On Mon, Jun 16, 2025 at 11:07:57AM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> I must have either misread or misremembered checkpatch's behavior.
> Possibly both. It has various other delay-realted warnings that point
> you at the kerneldoc comments for mdelay() and msleep() though, and the
> mdelay() comments say:
> 
>  * Please double check, whether mdelay() is the right way to go or whether a
>  * refactoring of the code is the better variant to be able to use msleep()
>  * instead.

Okay, will check if msleep() has the same effects in case SMI takes too
long.

Best,
Michal