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: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 14:35:47 +0100 From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@...sung.com>, knaack.h@....de, pmeerw@...erw.net, linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Cc: s.samuel@...sung.com, r.mahale@...sung.com, aniroop.mathur@...il.com, Naveen Krishna Chatradhi <ch.naveen@...sung.com>, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>, Vlad Dogaru <vlad.dogaru@...el.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH] IIO: Change msleep to usleep_range for small msecs On 11/27/2016 11:51 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On 26/11/16 03:47, Aniroop Mathur wrote: >> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer. >> (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range) >> This is not the desired behaviour for many cases like device resume time, >> device suspend time, device enable time, data reading time, etc. >> Thus, change msleep to usleep_range for precise wakeups. >> >> Signed-off-by: Aniroop Mathur <a.mathur@...sung.com> > As these need individual review by the various original authors and driver maintainers to > establish the intent of the sleep, it would have been better to have done a series of > patches (one per driver) with the relevant maintainers cc'd on the ones that they care about. > > Most of these are ADI parts looked after by Lars though so perhaps wait for his comments > before respining. I agree with what Jonathan said. For most of these extending the maximum sleep time a bit further is ok.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists