netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: add phy_speed_down and phy_speed

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: <8857b2f4-9aab-fb90-ecad-7b27a6fa991c@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:10:33 +0200
From:   Heiner Kallweit <hkallweit1@...il.com>
To:     Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
Cc:     Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/2] net: phy: add phy_speed_down and
 phy_speed_up

On 12.07.2018 21:09, Andrew Lunn wrote:
>> Like r8169 also tg3 driver doesn't wait for the speed-down-renegotiation
>> to finish. Therefore, even though I share Andrew's concerns, there seem
>> to be chips where it's safe to not wait for the renegotiation to finish
>> (e.g. because device is in PCI D3 already and can't generate an interrupt).
>> Having said that I'd keep the sync parameter for phy_speed_down so that
>> the driver can decide.
> 
> Hi Heiner
> 
> Please put a big fat comment about the dangers of sync=false in the
> function header. We want people to known it is dangerous by default,
> and should only be used in special conditions, when it is known to be
> safe.
> 	Andrew
> 
OK ..

Heiner