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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 04:58:33 -0800 From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> To: Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>, Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org> Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>, Willy Tarreau <willy@...a-x.org>, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, Sirnam Swetha <theonly.ultimate@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "Staging: panel: usleep_range is preferred over udelay" On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 18:21 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:47:26AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 12:16 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Ugh... Checkpatch told us to introduce bugs... :( We almost certainly > > > would have missed this bug in review, but it wasn't sent to the list so > > > I guess we'll never know. > > > > So when isn't usleep_range preferred over udelay? > > inside a spin_lock or in some interrupt routine. That's what timers-howto says and the checkpatch message for this refers to it. This message has been in checkpatch since 2010 commit 1a15a250862fda3fbdf8454cc7131e24de904e7c Author: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org> Maybe the checkpatch message can have "when not atomic" added or some such.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists