netdev - Re: [net PATCH v2 4/8] fbnic: Actually flush

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: <04bb706b-5576-47f8-b649-8d7c53cc884c@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 15:03:17 -0700
From: Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.duyck@...il.com>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <kuba@...nel.org>,
	<pabeni@...hat.com>, <horms@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [net PATCH v2 4/8] fbnic: Actually flush_tx instead of stalling
 out



On 5/6/2025 1:31 PM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 11:52 AM Jacob Keller <jacob.e.keller@...el.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> This block makes me think of read_poll_timeout... but I guess that
>> doesn't quite fit for this implementation since you aren't just doing a
>> simple register read...
> 
> Yeah, the problem is it doesn't quite fit. Our "op" in this case would
> be fbnic_mbx_process_tx_msgs which doesn't return a value. We would
> essentially have to wrap it in something and then add an unused return
> value.

And something like wake_event_timeout() doesn't really make sense either
since you're not waiting on an event from another thread that could call
wake_up.

I'm fine with this, just thinking out loud about the different patterns
available.