From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9AC46231845 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 08:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.7 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770625964; cv=none; b=uspXdMX0HK9X8WKLDEopcTxy9PBYfqhMqIbd27b17axBLz2DUTU6hE4eXnS/GdufzCDxtKYoNAb0FLBg6liTAdHV5lHIVq54OZmqExOHrtWOOuw2pAoljUOTyDrFWgISqI6IMy8xnFLbQ4nHSQg8as7gqTyfmqL3wxE7ZKWOJBs= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770625964; c=relaxed/simple; bh=WD1QExfDysNw/0CCg0Xqb5zboOh59pXEm3LVc+VN27c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rktutEex1/LgfcWuIVkK9OQiJIQXVKrlAmcpySrX1Xxc9fX6Ru/d66PAWcVrLN693U2RH0ojUEsTNH63MKik4S4AT/u3E//+n5lYTwLAySqp+6Lc6G9bWUvWu5g5LBmSIsTaC0mD8drjTpr4TqsEbxgB0ZF3g+lGTVtWI7A41KU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=Z+ZeXlMS; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.7 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="Z+ZeXlMS" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1770625965; x=1802161965; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=WD1QExfDysNw/0CCg0Xqb5zboOh59pXEm3LVc+VN27c=; b=Z+ZeXlMSO0uDkXMbXi+Ng2h+2+HVGmeASwzqr0sm0RU5Z1HuGpmkim1h nYAmddwcarKdx0iZhFLjrh4yqjDr3QftXvdr1F38cMp71teCu7jgOAyjq drM7aELK9DG+RqiSmBthKyvkT4DggY7S484BA2l8uneCQIReVhpca86cj eX/dQeYM/uwqdUZQ8OekDNIAV6wxvBO78N0gNLxURaPbFKom191C6LiON UDz/2J/GBBK1rzNv9ORUTulmCO5qb557WLy39tjQp11cggnblS1GFCYud mFvNzCiRfGegTIWsNo1hpFKa3QOUE9lV41Dc39Vu0wn8ps7OY8vTnjTEh Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: qQb+FJoOSbik44HqHOJpVQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: 3O3ts+SUQuCqJGiejC1aCQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11695"; a="97191297" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,281,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="97191297" Received: from orviesa003.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.143]) by fmvoesa101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2026 00:32:44 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 2Ys8Y4mFQX6X4VcG8TjhwA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: QVEcYcNaS1eBTbWpb7cjVQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,281,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="215695956" Received: from pgcooper-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.128]) by ORVIESA003-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2026 00:32:43 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 10:32:39 +0200 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Neel Bullywon Cc: apw@canonical.com, joe@perches.com, dwaipayanray1@gmail.com, lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkpatch: suggest fsleep() for short msleep() calls Message-ID: References: <20260208155935.72687-1-neelb2403@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20260208155935.72687-1-neelb2403@gmail.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Sun, Feb 08, 2026 at 10:59:35AM -0500, Neel Bullywon wrote: > Update the MSLEEP warning to suggest fsleep() as a duration based > sleep API. fsleep() autoselects the best sleep mechanism (udelay, > usleep_range, or msleep) based on the requested duration, making > it the preferred replacement for short msleep() calls. Hmm... My understanding was that the warning itself has a mention of usleep_range(). Looking at the patch I think the current wording is okay, but it may be expanded to suggest fsleep(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko