linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: suggest fsleep() for short msleep() calls

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: <20260208184119.74729-1-neelb2403@gmail.com>
Date: Sun,  8 Feb 2026 13:41:19 -0500
From: Neel Bullywon <neelb2403@...il.com>
To: joe@...ches.com
Cc: apw@...onical.com,
	dwaipayanray1@...il.com,
	lukas.bulwahn@...il.com,
	andriy.shevchenko@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: suggest fsleep() for short msleep() calls

On Sun, 2026-02-08 at 08:36 -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> maybe change msleep to a #define macro so if the argument is
> constant call fsleep instead

Thanks for the suggestion, I'd like to implement this for a v2 but
want to clarify a few things.

1. fsleep() is static inline and calls msleep() on line 134 of
   delay.h. Since inline functions are expanded at the call site,
   the msleep() macro would expand inside fsleep() at every call
   site even if the macro is defined after fsleep(). I'd need to
   change that call to (msleep)() to suppress expansion. Same for
   ssleep() on line 103. Does that sound right?

2. Should this be a single patch or a small series of patches?