Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in hp100_login_to_vg_hub | From | Jia-Ju Bai <> | Date | Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:13:15 +0800 |
| |
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.
| |