linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] e1000e: changed some expensive calls of udelay to 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, 4 Sep 2017 18:25:55 +0200
From:   Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:     Matthew Tan <matthew.tan_1@....com>
Cc:     jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com, michael.kardonik@....com,
        carolyn.wyborny@...el.com, donald.c.skidmore@...el.com,
        bruce.w.allan@...el.com, john.ronciak@...el.com,
        mitch.a.williams@...el.com, intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] e1000e: changed some expensive calls of udelay to
 usleep_range

Hi!

> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ s32 e1000e_read_phy_reg_mdic(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 offset, u16 *data)
>  	 * reading duplicate data in the next MDIC transaction.
>  	 */
>  	if (hw->mac.type == e1000_pch2lan)
> -		udelay(100);
> +		usleep_range(90, 100);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

Can you explain why shortening the delay is acceptable here?
										
> @@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ s32 e1000e_write_phy_reg_mdic(struct e1000_hw *hw, u32 offset, u16 data)
>  	 * reading duplicate data in the next MDIC transaction.
>  	 */
>  	if (hw->mac.type == e1000_pch2lan)
> -		udelay(100);
> +		usleep_range(90, 110);
>  
>  	return 0;
>  }

And here?
										Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (182 bytes)