From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] hp100: Fix a possible sleep-in-atomic bug in
 hp100_login_to_vg_hub
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 11:13:15 +0800
Message-ID: <18472c42-4eaf-7189-a16f-489a706cba3e@gmail.com>
References: <1513158468-14382-1-git-send-email-baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
 <20171213.162032.129766742729458957.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: perex@perex.cz, floeff@mathematik.uni-stuttgart.de,
        acme@conectiva.com.br, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20171213.162032.129766742729458957.davem@davemloft.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

Thanks for reply :)
I think I should use "udelay(100000/HZ)" instead, do you think it is right?


Thanks,
Jia-Ju Bai


On 2017/12/14 5:20, David Miller wrote:
> I want you to review all of your patches and resend them after you
> have checked them carefully.
>
> The first patch I even looked at, this one, is buggy.
>
> You changed a schedule_timeout_interruptible(1) into a udelay(10)
>
> That's not right.
>
> schedule_timeout_interruptible() takes a "jiffies" argument, which
> is a completely different unit than udelay() takes.  You would have
> to scale the argument to udelay() in some way using HZ.
>
> Furthermore, the udelay argument you would come up with would
> be way too long to be appropirate in this atomic context.
>
> That's why the code tries to use a sleeping timeout, a long wait is
> necessary here.