linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: Add warnings for use of mdelay()

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:16:03 +0800
From:	Américo Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Israel Schlesinger <israels@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, joe@...ches.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] checkpatch: Add warnings for use of mdelay()

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 10:27:10AM -0700, Israel Schlesinger wrote:
>mdelay is a busy-wait loop which is wasteful. If at all possible,
>callers should use msleep instead of mdelay.
>
>The only time mdelay is really appropriate is in atomic context,
>however, delays of 1ms+ in atomic context are rather expensive, so
>a warning for this case is probably appropriate as well to encourage
>people to move such expensive delays outside of atomic context
>

Then udelay() is also preferred...
--
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/