From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [patch 10/11] scsi: fix bad use of udelay in atp870u.c Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:50:11 -0500 Message-ID: <20090110155011.GA22062@infradead.org> References: <200901092028.n09KSAeI024551@imap1.linux-foundation.org> <20090109205835.GB5069@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20090109130308.bfde281e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1231536107.3235.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([18.85.46.34]:54767 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751534AbZAJPuP (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2009 10:50:15 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1231536107.3235.50.camel@localhost.localdomain> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: James Bottomley Cc: Andrew Morton , Martin Michlmayr , linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 03:21:47PM -0600, James Bottomley wrote: > It's wrong to silence a warning or build break while keeping the effect > it was complaining about it's hiding a bug. Now if the warning is > wrong, we can take it out of the ARM build ... but I've got to say it > looks right: the udelay in this driver will lock a UP system solid for > 2ms. mdelay exist for a reason. Even if this code is really bad adding a comment about that and moving on is better than leaving the too large udelay there.