[lkml]   [2017]   [Dec]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in hp100_login_to_vg_hub
Sorry, I made a mistake in last e-mail.

Maybe "mdelay(1000/HZ)" or "udelay(1000000/HZ)" .
Which one do you think is right?

Jia-Ju Bai

On 2017/12/14 11:13, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> Thanks for reply :)
> I think I should use "udelay(100000/HZ)" instead, do you think it is
> right?
> Thanks,
> Jia-Ju Bai
> On 2017/12/14 5:20, David Miller wrote:
>> I want you to review all of your patches and resend them after you
>> have checked them carefully.
>> The first patch I even looked at, this one, is buggy.
>> You changed a schedule_timeout_interruptible(1) into a udelay(10)
>> That's not right.
>> schedule_timeout_interruptible() takes a "jiffies" argument, which
>> is a completely different unit than udelay() takes. You would have
>> to scale the argument to udelay() in some way using HZ.
>> Furthermore, the udelay argument you would come up with would
>> be way too long to be appropirate in this atomic context.
>> That's why the code tries to use a sleeping timeout, a long wait is
>> necessary here.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-12-14 04:31    [W:0.075 / U:0.692 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site