netdev - RE: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH v2 01/13] ethtool: allow custom interval for physical identification

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: <8DD2590731AB5D4C9DBF71A877482A90018A3427D7@orsmsx509.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2011 15:55:55 -0700
From:	"Allan, Bruce W" <bruce.w.allan@...el.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>
CC:	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH v2 01/13] ethtool: allow custom
 interval for physical identification

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 3:45 PM
>To: Allan, Bruce W
>Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>Subject: RE: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH v2 01/13] ethtool: allow custom interval
>for physical identification
>
>On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 15:39 -0700, Allan, Bruce W wrote:
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Ben Hutchings [mailto:bhutchings@...arflare.com]
>> >Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 1:25 PM
>> >To: Allan, Bruce W
>> >Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
>> >Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 RFC PATCH v2 01/13] ethtool: allow custom interval
>> >for physical identification
>> >
>> >I'm sure there ought to be a clearer way to do this, and to avoid any
>> >weird effects from integer overflow in the multiplication.  How about
>> >using an inner loop for each second:
>> >
>> >		/* Driver expects to be called at twice the frequency in rc */
>> >		int n = rc * 2, i, interval = HZ / n;
>> >
>
>		/* Count down seconds */
>> >		do {
>			/* Count down iterations per second */
>> >			i = n;
>> >			do {
>> >	 			rtnl_lock();
>> > 				rc = dev->ethtool_ops->set_phys_id(
>> >					dev, (i & 1) ? ETHTOOL_ID_OFF : ETHTOOL_ID_ON);
>> >	 			rtnl_unlock();
>> > 				if (rc)
>> > 					break;
>> >				schedule_timeout_interruptible(interval);
>> >			} while (!signal_pending(current) && --i != 0);
>> > 		} while (!signal_pending(current) &&
>> >			 (id.data == 0 || --id.data != 0));
>> >
>> >Ben.
>>
>> OK, if that is clearer to you...v3 forthcoming.
>
>I guess it wouldn't hurt to add comemnts too.  Would you agree that it's
>clear with the additions above?
>
>Ben.

Sure, makes sense to me.

Thanks,
Bruce.