Re: [PATCH] deinline sleep/delay functions

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Thursday 30 June 2005 13:47, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:21 +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > On Thursday 30 June 2005 12:19, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > There are a number of compile-time checks that your patch has removed
> > > > > which catch such things, and as such your patch is not acceptable.
> > > > > Some architectures have a lower threshold of acceptability for the
> > > > > maximum udelay value, so it's absolutely necessary to keep this.
> > > > 
> > > > It removes that check from x86 - other architectures retain it.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > For users, _any_ value, however large, will work for
> > any delay function.
> 
> that's not desired though. Desired is to limit udelay() to say 2000 or
> so. And force anything above that to go via mdelay() (just to make it
> stand out as broken code ;)

An if(usec > 2000) { printk(..); dump_stack(); } will do.

But do you really want to do this? There might be legitimate reasons
to compute udelay's parameter with results which are sometimes large.

If you really want to, let's decide on this limit now,
before patch cooking. I err to conservative (large) limit
(mostly in order to catch math underflows) or no limit at all.
--
vda

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/