linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iio: imu: inv

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: <aEwfUMgLTnQxOh_k@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2025 15:53:36 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
To: Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <Jean-Baptiste.Maneyrol@....com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
	David Lechner <dlechner@...libre.com>,
	Nuno Sá <nuno.sa@...log.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy@...nel.org>,
	"linux-iio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] iio: imu: inv_icm42600: add WoM support

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 12:46:46PM +0000, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol wrote:
> >From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
> >Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 10:29
> >On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol via B4 Relay wrote:

...

> >> +	if (sleep_ms)
> >> +		msleep(sleep_ms);
> >
> >I still wonder if we can get rid of the conditional here.
> >Would the
> >
> >	fsleep(sleep_ms * USEC_PER_MSEC)
> >
> >actually work as expected?
> >
> >Ditto for other case(s) like this.
> 
> fsleep(0) would call udelay(0) which is architecture dependent. It seems like
> it may delay for a very little while, but I'm not able to check that.

Hmm... This is unfortunate. Somebody needs at least make it clear in the
documentation if not yet done.

...

> >Overall, looking to this patch again, I think it would be better to prepend it
> >by replacing *int*_t types by the respective uXX ones. Because in this patch
> >we add dozens of new ones which increases an unneeded churn in the future.
> >
> In my opinion, to respect the rule don't mix *int*_t and uXX types, it is better
> to keep *int*_t types. If it need to be changed, we can change afterward the
> whole driver types with a replace tool and send it in a separate patch.

It will be never ending story, sorry. We need someone to solve this tech debt.
And since this patch adds more than 3 new users of it, I think it's a candidate
to embrace the burden.

> Jonathan,
> what is your statement on this point?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko