On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 09:26:16AM +0000, Jonathan McDowell wrote: > > The whole arithmetic with timeout_a/b/c is mostly gibberish and could > > be replaced with a single "max" constant without issues (just set it > > large enough). > > > > They could be all be replaced with let's say 3s timeout in a constant. > > This appears to have come up before: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/358e89ed2b766d51b5f57abf31ab7a925ac63379.1552348123.git.calvinow...@fb.com/ > > That patch was deemed overly complex and it was suggested to split it > up; I can't find any indication that was ever done which I guess is why > the discussion died off.
Looking back I suggest splitting timeouts and durations into separate patches: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20190312145553.gb6...@linux.intel.com/ > So just to clarify, this more recent patch is working around a situation > where the status register gets stuck and needs a complete retry of the > command send - it's an Infineon errata, not something that would be > fixed with a longer timeout. Hmm... please shout if I ignore something but if we could -ERESTARTSYS semantics here that should ignite completely new transmit flow, wouldn't it? I'm not seeing this locally so far unfortunately. BR, Jarkko
