linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] base: power: domain: Replace mdelay with msleep

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: <bc936aa3-ce69-2531-b5bf-686425a784fd@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 26 Jan 2018 18:28:29 +0800
From:   Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
To:     Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
Cc:     rjw@...ysocki.net, khilman@...nel.org, ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
        len.brown@...el.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] base: power: domain: Replace mdelay with msleep



On 2018/1/26 18:26, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Fri 2018-01-26 16:38:19, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> After checking all possible call chains to genpd_dev_pm_detach() and
>> genpd_dev_pm_attach() here,
>> my tool finds that these functions are never called in atomic context,
>> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
>> Thus mdelay can be replaced with msleep to avoid busy wait.
>>
>> This is found by a static analysis tool named DCNS written by
> myself.
>
> Well, cond_resched() just after msleep certainly looks like that.
>
> Did the patch receive any testing?
>

Thanks for reply :)

I only perform compilation testing but did not run it in real execution.


Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai