From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [192.198.163.10]) (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 D52F23115A2 for ; Mon, 9 Feb 2026 08:34:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770626082; cv=none; b=i+Lsw4AT8YkLPmuwyJQ/fwDsfDmlAShOi2a+Q7J5jhw3Ocl4ILGI0OjlWkQPVq9zL02KggURGgy3Rfeqr6eH3mAWRTP9GrKtIMDgTaY9cKnso6N0dXndpIR2a0PbNFS3T5Kabl/e1TGlQO1P4WKWeGpGeMI3ZoWyYv4RNdvFIW0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1770626082; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ibe5XtGCcV8U5K5p5WjcIALLITvyGDWw9oDN0uZnEsQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=cV/HPyntYwNZj/nQS/W5xlNQxZvf6XmZyZf4EGSwEIEFTpNacbbtjs5lY27/YtLU0BAlLF6oNnk2ou4hmXnLyuWhe3CwUEo44Re4eh4/5mYtwm7cEQKWBC4CHQa0rGz6gNaEaBmefasAvi+0XJzR8f0+a9naLikQljX2q6ZT4Qc= 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=kmrNJUml; arc=none smtp.client-ip=192.198.163.10 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="kmrNJUml" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1770626082; x=1802162082; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=ibe5XtGCcV8U5K5p5WjcIALLITvyGDWw9oDN0uZnEsQ=; b=kmrNJUmlx+1Xavo2PxqfqKmhG3heBOrxTu+i1M8FIEXp4/xYPUu6Ngwh zA+k7j3FxopeiyPEjKH/9k1Lfb2W9Uf55ilr1dJFEIJlv9TY78sKRRMz2 nqHgy/vhOXUqQzcFyXSvEx2UmhODw3K1GiIJTdCdIrOu71x2kPEvhL8g1 hIr3o6TAyz5zOj0LuWpDOt3/5zUNhzYysaneTBIfMhrFMohc2jftt6xKd VnO7TS7b5vofQ/4xAedsvrRocgPexPaVLNfuxrlLXhYI33UTC3B3W7VAL TTXN7TwsXSI4rn/3EWmDa8SOQx2A6OqWmmyo/DMi9R0wOug288rXZ9H2w A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: Ihb6iEmLRAKXbeXp61AwYw== X-CSE-MsgGUID: gAYNsfD2QLy9e4l0gC1IuA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6800,10657,11695"; a="83103567" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,281,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="83103567" Received: from orviesa005.jf.intel.com ([10.64.159.145]) by fmvoesa104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2026 00:34:39 -0800 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: TrcZJKgST4eU/Bc6yFFFCA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: lVUZdVqJQ9yV4nP30Akxqw== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.21,281,1763452800"; d="scan'208";a="216490238" Received: from pgcooper-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.245.245.128]) by orviesa005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Feb 2026 00:34:37 -0800 Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2026 10:34:35 +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: Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - c/o Alberga Business Park, 6 krs, Bertel Jungin Aukio 5, 02600 Espoo On Mon, Feb 09, 2026 at 10:32:44AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > 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(). Yeah, I would expand this one to make sure we mention fsleep() and update the # prefer usleep_range over udelay one to also mention fsleep(). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko