linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: nvec: replace short udelay with 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]

Message-ID: <2025122059-dipping-granola-74c5@gregkh>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2025 11:32:57 +0100
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Preyas <preyas17@...omail.in>
Cc: marvin24@....de, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: nvec: replace short udelay with usleep_range

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 10:08:20AM +0000, Preyas wrote:
> From: Preyas Sharma <preyas17@...omail.in>
> 
> Hi,

This isn't needed in a changelog, please read the documentation for how
to write a good changelog text.

> Replace udelay(33) with usleep_range(33, 66) in the nvec IRQ handler.
> 
> This avoids busy-waiting while preserving the required delay for the
> first byte after a command, and follows guidance for microsecond-range
> waits.

What guidance?  And why 66?  Do you have the hardware to test this with?
And if you sleep, doesn't this get messed up?

Attempting to fix this checkpatch warning is almost always not a good
idea unless you have access to the hardware and the specs for it to
verify that this is an ok thing to do.

Please read the email archives for the many other times this has come
up for more details.

thanks,

greg k-h