linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

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: <ZS+1mpOYTKRaABR1@ashyti-mobl2.lan>
Date:   Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:38:18 +0200
From:   Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...ia.fr>
Cc:     kenechukwu maduechesi <maduechesik@...il.com>,
        outreachy@...ts.linux.dev, shreeya.patel23498@...il.com,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function.

Hi Julia,

> > Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling.
> >
> > Reported by checkpatch:
> >
> > CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay
> 
> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches,
> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is
> correct.

I actually don't really mind this patch... I would exchange these
udelay() with almost anything, they look to me placed a bit
random anyway (without going too much in detail).

But in general, for this project, I think you are right and it's
a good idea not to blindly change delay and sleeping functions
without really knowing what you are doing.

Andi