netdev - Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period

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: <33f6f81b-ce41-4eba-c62d-93cdb06daa8f@ti.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Sep 2016 23:23:43 +0300
From:   Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>
To:     Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
CC:     "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@...com>,
        Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>, WingMan Kwok <w-kwok2@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] net: ethernet: ti: cpts: fix overflow check period

On 09/14/2016 11:08 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:03:18PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>> On 09/14/2016 05:25 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:02:30PM +0300, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
>>>> @@ -427,9 +427,6 @@ static void cpts_calc_mult_shift(struct cpts *cpts)
>>>>  	u64 ns;
>>>>  	u64 frac;
>>>>  
>>>> -	if (cpts->cc_mult || cpts->cc.shift)
>>>> -		return;
>>>> -
>>>>  	freq = clk_get_rate(cpts->refclk);
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* Calc the maximum number of seconds which we can run before
>>>
>>> This hunk has nothing to do with $subject.
>>
>> Sry, but I did not get your comment here :(
>> I'd happy to update patch according to your request, but could you provide more info here, pls?
> 
> You added that code in patch #7.  Then you moved it in patch #8.  You
> could have made the code correct in patch #7 to begin with.
> 

Do you mean 
 -	if (cpts->cc_mult || cpts->cc.shift)
 -		return;
??

if yes then those changes are correct as from patch#7 point of 
view, as from patch#8 because they are separate standalone changes.
In patch patch#7 it reasonable to ball out earlier, while in patch#8
it required to move forward a bit as I need to know maxsec. 

Sry, that I'm bothering you with stupid questions.


-- 
regards,
-grygorii