Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1499197
| From | Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() |
| Date | 2016-10-11 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <src0a-2TI-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <sqQ9k-6f1-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sqZvX-3En-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Am Dienstag, 11. Oktober 2016, 09:14:38 CEST schrieb Thomas Gleixner: > On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, Douglas Anderson wrote: > > Users of usleep_range() expect that it will _never_ return in less time > > than the minimum passed parameter. However, nothing in any of the code > > > ensures this. Specifically: > There is no such guarantee for that interface and never has been, so how > did you make sure that none of the existing users is relying on this? > > You can't just can't just declare that all all of the users expect that and > be done with it. It may be my personal ignorance for not finding this explained, but the function documentation [0] states "min ... Minimum time in usecs to sleep" which sounds pretty guaranteed to me. One should of course make sure to not break anything intentionally, but having things expect to work outside these parameters sounds somewhat broken If the specified values are flexible beyond their stated range, I guess the documentation should be updated to reflect that. [0] https://www.kernel.org/doc/htmldocs/device-drivers/API-usleep-range.html
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-10 23:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-11 00:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-10-11 09:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-11 18:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> - 2016-10-12 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> - 2016-10-11 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-10-12 15:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-12 19:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> - 2016-10-11 22:40 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> - 2016-10-11 21:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> - 2016-10-11 21:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-11 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de> - 2016-10-11 22:50 +0200
Re: [v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-10-12 18:10 +0200
Re: [v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> - 2016-10-12 19:00 +0200
Re: [v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process() Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - 2016-10-12 19:00 +0200
csiph-web