linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/8] staging: vchiq_arm: replace sleep() with 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]

Message-ID: <260b38b8-6f3f-f6cc-0388-09a269ead507@i2se.com>
Date:   Wed, 15 Sep 2021 07:21:53 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Gaston Gonzalez <gascoar@...il.com>, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, nsaenz@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
        dan.carpenter@...cle.com, ojaswin98@...il.com,
        amarjargal16@...il.com, linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        bcm-kernel-feedback-list@...adcom.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Phil Elwell <phil@...pberrypi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] staging: vchiq_arm: replace sleep() with
 usleep_range()

Hi,

Am 14.09.21 um 23:35 schrieb Gaston Gonzalez:
> usleep_range() should be used instead of sleep() when sleepings range
> from 10 us to 20 ms, [1].
>
> Reported by checkpatch.pl
>
> [1] Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
> ---
>  drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> index b25369a13452..0214ae37e01f 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> @@ -824,7 +824,7 @@ vchiq_bulk_transmit(unsigned int handle, const void *data, unsigned int size,
>  		if (status != VCHIQ_RETRY)
>  			break;
>  
> -		msleep(1);
> +		usleep_range(1000, 1100);

from my understanding the usage of usleep_range() and hrtimers isn't
necessary here. The intention is to sleep a little bit and not "exactly"
1 ms.

@Phil Elwell: what is your opinion?

>  	}
>  
>  	return status;
> @@ -861,7 +861,7 @@ enum vchiq_status vchiq_bulk_receive(unsigned int handle, void *data,
>  		if (status != VCHIQ_RETRY)
>  			break;
>  
> -		msleep(1);
> +		usleep_range(1000, 1100);
dito
>  	}
>  
>  	return status;