[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180126173130.GZ13338@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 17:31:30 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
Cc: tim@...erelk.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] block: paride: on26: Replace mdelay with msleep in
on26_test_port
On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 11:42:25PM +0800, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> After checking all possible call chains to on26_test_port() here,
> my tool finds that this function is never called in atomic context,
> namely never in an interrupt handler or holding a spinlock.
> And on26_test_port() is only called by pi_probe_unit() that calls
> wait_event() through pi_claim(),
> so it indicates that on26_test_port() can call functions that can sleep.
> Thus mdelay can be replaced with msleep to avoid busy wait.
Sigh... Here's how I would've written it:
"
on26_test_port() is never called from atomic contexts.
It has no direct callers and it is reachable only via ->test_port.
->test_port has only one user:
drivers/block/paride/paride.c:322: max = pi->proto->test_port(pi);
in pi_probe_unit(). That gets called only from pi_init(), called from
p{d,cd,f,t,g}_detect(), called from module_init stuff, all of the above
without entering atomic contexts along the way.
Despite never getting called from atomic contexts, on26_test_port() contains
mdelay(100), i.e. busy-loops for 0.1s; that's neither nice nor needed, since
msleep() would serve just as well.
Found by [reference to tool]"
Powered by blists - more mailing lists