linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 01/48] clk: at91: replace usleep() by udelay() calls

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <11395561.bQatt85IOg@wuerfel>
Date:	Sat, 11 Jun 2016 00:30:36 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/48] clk: at91: replace usleep() by udelay() calls

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 12:03:04 AM CEST Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> From: Cyrille Pitchen <cyrille.pitchen@...el.com>
> 
> Fix the main and slow clock .prepare() implementations which used to call
> usleep() when the scheduler wasn't ready yet.
> 

Does this have to be called that early? It seems wasteful to always
call udelay() here, when these are functions that are normally
allowed to sleep.

	Arnd