From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: der.herr@hofr.at (Nicholas Mc Guire)
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2016 16:48:49 +0000
Subject: udelay vs usleep_range
In-Reply-To: <CA+MoWDoQpJ1MxkwmyZ5AzRTqQfCkVrNx9-KGnHR=_UwKzuodfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOCi2DEXoxZSmTSAubGuX9m4RDrqt109ed5JKrinWQO=4pky2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+MoWDoQpJ1MxkwmyZ5AzRTqQfCkVrNx9-KGnHR=_UwKzuodfw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160911164849.GA9538@osadl.at>
To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org
List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org

> 
> But looking into the code on line 634 where I found the udelay(33), I
> have the impression that this is a false positive, something your
> checkpatch didn't catch properly. That call is inside a function named
> nvec_interrupt(), and the line:
> 
>         err = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, nvec->irq, nvec_interrupt,
> 0, "nvec", nvec);
> 
> declares it as the interrupt handler. The interrupt handler can't
> sleep(interrupt handler runs in the atomic context in terminology of
> timers-howto.txt), and using udelay() seems to be the thing to do
> here.
>
devm_request_irq
  -> devm_request_threaded_irq 
       -> request_threaded_irq

so this should be ok here.

thx!
hofrat