linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Revert "Staging: panel: usleep

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]

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.