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 11:31:06 +0800 |
| |
Sorry, I made a mistake in last e-mail.
Maybe "mdelay(1000/HZ)" or "udelay(1000000/HZ)" . Which one do you think is right?
Thanks, 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. >
| |