netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/4] DSA: Convert msleep calls to 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABLseQ6h8+Vu+eMwhTwC44vFArL107bLrwY-sipgR89RxWbSBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:33:15 -0800
From:	Barry Grussling <barry@...ssling.com>
To:	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] DSA: Convert msleep calls to usleep_range calls

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Ben Hutchings
<bhutchings@...arflare.com> wrote:
> I seriously doubt that it is worth the trouble to save wake-ups during
> the occasional hardware reset.  And using usleep_range() 1000 times is
> weird.  If the sleep duration can vary then the right thing to do is
> probably to calculate a deadline first (jiffies + HZ) and then sleep
> repeatedly until the deadline is in the past.  This also accounts for
> the fact that HZ may be < 1000...

I don't think the idea here is variable sleep time.  Its more just
giving hardware a little
bit of time to catch up with firmware.  I don't really care about
variable sleep times,
but checkpatch.pl says msleep of less than 20 ms is bad and may result in sleep
times of up to 20 ms for requests of shorter durations.

Should I use udelay instead?  What is the recommended method for sleeping 1 ms?

Thanks for your help.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html