[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQCTFwswY7dDmfbC@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 09:55:35 +0000
From: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
Cc: a.hindborg@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com, dakr@...nel.org,
daniel.almeida@...labora.com, ojeda@...nel.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de,
bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com, frederic@...nel.org,
gary@...yguo.net, jstultz@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
lossin@...nel.org, lyude@...hat.com, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
sboyd@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, tmgross@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] rust: add udelay() function
On Sun, Oct 26, 2025 at 09:54:57PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> Add udelay() function, inserts a delay based on microseconds with busy
> waiting, in preparation for supporting read_poll_timeout_atomic().
>
> Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@...il.com>
With below nits addressed:
Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>
> ---
> rust/helpers/time.c | 5 +++++
> rust/kernel/time/delay.rs | 39 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 44 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/rust/helpers/time.c b/rust/helpers/time.c
> index a318e9fa4408..67a36ccc3ec4 100644
> --- a/rust/helpers/time.c
> +++ b/rust/helpers/time.c
> @@ -33,3 +33,8 @@ s64 rust_helper_ktime_to_ms(const ktime_t kt)
> {
> return ktime_to_ms(kt);
> }
> +
> +void rust_helper_udelay(unsigned long usec)
> +{
> + udelay(usec);
> +}
> diff --git a/rust/kernel/time/delay.rs b/rust/kernel/time/delay.rs
> index eb8838da62bc..0739b75fb9c3 100644
> --- a/rust/kernel/time/delay.rs
> +++ b/rust/kernel/time/delay.rs
> @@ -47,3 +47,42 @@ pub fn fsleep(delta: Delta) {
> bindings::fsleep(delta.as_micros_ceil() as c_ulong)
> }
> }
> +
> +/// Inserts a delay based on microseconds with busy waiting.
> +///
> +/// Equivalent to the C side [`udelay()`], which delays in microseconds.
> +///
> +/// `delta` must be within `[0, `MAX_UDELAY_MS`]` in milliseconds;
We can nest backticks. This should be:
`[0, MAX_UDELAY_MS]`
> +/// otherwise, it is erroneous behavior. That is, it is considered a bug to
> +/// call this function with an out-of-range value, in which case the function
> +/// will insert a delay for at least the maximum value in the range and
> +/// may warn in the future.
There's a debug assertion now so I would remove the "maxmimu value"
part.
> +/// The behavior above differs from the C side [`udelay()`] for which out-of-range
> +/// values could lead to an overflow and unexpected behavior.
> +///
> +/// [`udelay()`]: https://docs.kernel.org/timers/delay_sleep_functions.html#c.udelay
> +pub fn udelay(delta: Delta) {
> + const MAX_UDELAY_DELTA: Delta = Delta::from_millis(bindings::MAX_UDELAY_MS as i64);
> +
> + debug_assert!(delta.as_nanos() >= 0);
> + debug_assert!(delta <= MAX_UDELAY_DELTA);
> +
> + let delta = if (Delta::ZERO..=MAX_UDELAY_DELTA).contains(&delta) {
> + delta
> + } else {
> + MAX_UDELAY_DELTA
> + };
> +
> + // SAFETY: It is always safe to call `udelay()` with any duration.
> + // Note that the kernel is compiled with `-fno-strict-overflow`
> + // so any out-of-range value could lead to unexpected behavior
> + // but won't lead to undefined behavior.
> + unsafe {
> + // Convert the duration to microseconds and round up to preserve
> + // the guarantee; `udelay()` inserts a delay for at least
> + // the provided duration, but that it may delay for longer
> + // under some circumstances.
> + bindings::udelay(delta.as_micros_ceil() as c_ulong)
> + }
> +}
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists