On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 18:21 +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:47:26AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-01-25 at 12:16 +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > Ugh... Checkpatch told us to introduce bugs... :( We almost certainly > > > would have missed this bug in review, but it wasn't sent to the list so > > > I guess we'll never know. > > > > So when isn't usleep_range preferred over udelay? > > inside a spin_lock or in some interrupt routine. That's what timers-howto says and the checkpatch message for this refers to it. This message has been in checkpatch since 2010 commit 1a15a250862fda3fbdf8454cc7131e24de904e7c Author: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Maybe the checkpatch message can have "when not atomic" added or some such. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
