[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170308124642.GC29118@ulmo.ba.sec>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2017 13:46:42 +0100
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>
To: Marc Dietrich <marvin24@....de>
Cc: SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
outreachy-kernel <outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com>,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH] staging: nvec: cleanup
USLEEP_RANGEcheckpatch checks
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 03:57:01PM +0100, Marc Dietrich wrote:
> Hi Simran,
>
> Am Donnerstag, 2. März 2017, 15:48:13 CET schrieb SIMRAN SINGHAL:
> > On Thursday, March 2, 2017 at 8:06:40 PM UTC+5:30, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2 Mar 2017, simran singhal wrote:
> > > > Resolve strict checkpatch USLEEP_RANGE checks by converting delays and
> > > > sleeps as described in ./Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt.
> > > >
> > > > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/
> > > > timers/timers-howto.txt
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhal...@...il.com <javascript:>>
>
> I prefer not to change this. The whole interrupt routine is very wonky, and
> changing some delays might break the communication with the i2c master. Also
> this is in interrupt context, so a change to usleep_range may not by
> justified.
Yeah, I think this is going to trigger a WARN_ON from somewhere in the
scheduler because of the interrupt context. I suppose checkpatch could
be made smarter about this, though I doubt my perl skills would be up
to it.
Thierry
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists