On Mon, Jul 26, 2021 at 11:03 PM Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > > For PreAuthDelay, with the comment I wanted to say that the MyLatch is > > not the correct one we would want to wait for. Since there is no > > problem in using it there, I changed the comment to following: > > /* > > * Let's not use WL_LATCH_SET for PreAuthDelay to be consistent with > > * PostAuthDelay. > > */ > > How about we elaborate a bit? > > WL_LATCH_SET is not used for consistency with PostAuthDelay. > MyLatch isn't fully initialized for the backend at this point, > anyway.
+1. > + /* > + * PostAuthDelay will not get applied, if WL_LATCH_SET is > used. This > + * is because the latch could have been set initially. > + */ > > I would suggest the following: > > If WL_LATCH_SET is used, PostAuthDelay may not be applied, > since the latch might already be set. +1. > Otherwise, this patch looks good and could probably be marked ready- > for-committer. PSA v3 patch. Regards, Bharath Rupireddy.
v3-0001-Use-a-WaitLatch-for-pre-post-_auth_delay.patch
Description: Binary data
