[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <337af773-a1da-0c04-6180-aa3597372522@cogentembedded.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 13:45:57 +0300
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com>
To: Scott Schafer <schaferjscott@...il.com>, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org
Cc: Manish Chopra <manishc@...vell.com>, GR-Linux-NIC-Dev@...vell.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 20/23] staging: qlge: Fix CHECK: usleep_range is
preferred over udelay
Hello!
On 11.12.2019 21:12, Scott Schafer wrote:
> chage udelay() to usleep_range()
Change?
> Signed-off-by: Scott Schafer <schaferjscott@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> index e18aa335c899..9427386e4a1e 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/qlge/qlge_main.c
> @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ int ql_sem_spinlock(struct ql_adapter *qdev, u32 sem_mask)
> do {
> if (!ql_sem_trylock(qdev, sem_mask))
> return 0;
> - udelay(100);
> + usleep_range(100, 200);
I hope you're not in atomic context...
> } while (--wait_count);
> return -ETIMEDOUT;
> }
MBR, Sergei
Powered by blists - more mailing lists