linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: 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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 07 Feb 2022 09:28:13 -0800
From:   Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Leonardo Araujo <leonardo.aa88@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: wfx: CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over
 udelay

On Mon, 2022-02-07 at 17:46 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 01:00:51PM -0300, Leonardo Araujo wrote:
> > Fixes the checks reported by checkpatch.pl for usleep_range.
[]
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c b/drivers/staging/wfx/bh.c
[]
> > @@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ void wfx_bh_poll_irq(struct wfx_dev *wdev)
> >  			dev_err(wdev->dev, "time out while polling control register\n");
> >  			return;
> >  		}
> > -		udelay(200);
> > +		usleep_range(200, 200);

range with the same low/high values is pretty useless.

And Leonardo, checkpatch should have warned you about this.
You, as a novice kernel submitter, should always use it on patches
you create before you send them out for review.

> Do you have the hardware to verify that this is the correct fix for
> this?
> 
> You can not just blindly make this type of change here, sorry, otherwise
> we would have done so long ago with a simple search/replace :)

Greg, you keep writing this but treewide search/replace is almost never done.