linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rts5208: Replace instances of udelay by 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: <Y07dExeWY5lXgKLr@kroah.com>
Date:   Tue, 18 Oct 2022 19:06:27 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:     Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
Cc:     linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: rts5208: Replace instances of udelay by
 usleep_range

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 04:04:02PM +0000, Tanjuate Brunostar wrote:
> Replace the use of udelay by usleep_range as suggested by checkpatch:
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
> +               udelay(30);
> 
> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay; see Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst
> +               udelay(50);
> 
> Signed-off-by: Tanjuate Brunostar <tanjubrunostar0@...il.com>
> ---
> 
> v2: changed the max values of the usleep_rage instances as they cannot
> be equal to the min values as suggested by checkpatch
> 
>  drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> index 14449f8afad5..a9724ca5eccf 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rts5208/ms.c
> @@ -3235,7 +3235,7 @@ static int ms_write_multiple_pages(struct rtsx_chip *chip, u16 old_blk,
>  			return STATUS_FAIL;
>  		}
>  
> -		udelay(30);
> +		usleep_range(30, 31);

Did you test this?  And making the range 1 really doesn't make any
sense, right?

thanks,

greg k-h