Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Oct 2023 12:40:33 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] staging: rts5208: Replace delay function. | From | Karolina Stolarek <> |
| |
On 18.10.2023 12:28, Julia Lawall wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2023, Karolina Stolarek wrote: > >> On 18.10.2023 09:45, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 09:32:46AM +0200, Karolina Stolarek wrote: >>>> On 18.10.2023 09:03, Julia Lawall wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 17 Oct 2023, kenechukwu maduechesi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Replace udelay() with usleep_range() for more precise delay handling. >>>>>> >>>>>> Reported by checkpatch: >>>>>> >>>>>> CHECK: usleep_range is preferred over udelay >>>>> >>>>> This message is typically not a good candidate for outreachy patches, >>>>> because you need access to the device to be sure that any change is >>>>> correct. >>>> >>>> Could we add a paragraph on how to pick good checkpatch.pl error to fix to >>>> the Outreachyfirstpatch docs? This could go to "Find a driver to clean up" >>>> section, for example. >>> >>> The ability to find a "good" error changes over time, so this might be >>> hard to do. >> >> I agree, but we can all agree that experimenting with udelay during Outreachy >> is not a good idea, and people should know about it > > In general, I think that it is better in the contribution period to do the > wrong thing and then learn about why it is wrong, but this case comes up > over and over, and it is always not the right thing to do, so I added an > appropriate explanation. Thanks for the suggestion.
Absolutely. Thanks for the docs update. Still, one thing -- is empty section after "Some drivers that are on their way out of the kernel are:" intentional?
All the best, Karolina
> > julia > >> >> All the best, >> Karolina >> >>> >>> good luck! >>> >>> greg k-h >>
| |