linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] mmc_spi: allow higher timeouts for SPI mode

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: <200903111317.42696.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date:	Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:17:42 -0800
From:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To:	Wolfgang Mües <wolfgang.mues@...rswald.de>
Cc:	"Matt Fleming" <matt@...sole-pimps.org>,
	"Pierre Ossman" <drzeus@...eus.cx>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"Mike Frysinger" <vapier.adi@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] mmc_spi: allow higher timeouts for SPI mode

On Wednesday 11 March 2009, Wolfgang Mües wrote:
> > Is there a reason that you didn't implement this with msleep()
> > as was noted in the comment above the timeout?
> 
> Yes. msleep() is a busy waiting. It is implemented in terms of usleep(),
> which is also busy waiting. The old comment is wrong.

I think you're confused.  A *delay() call will busy-wait.
But a *sleep() call like msleep() will schedule.

(These speed concerns apply primarily to patch #6, not
this one ...)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/