Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: dgnc: dgnc_*.c: Use usleep_range over udelay
 to improve coalescing processor wakeups
To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <20161206085958.5286-1-shiva@exdev.nl>
 <20161206091222.GA12130@kroah.com>
Cc: lidza.louina@gmail.com, markh@compro.net,
        driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From: Shiva Kerdel <shiva@exdev.nl>
Message-ID: <269ff7f4-c8f2-347e-835a-a5509bbb739a@exdev.nl>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2016 11:01:48 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161206091222.GA12130@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 644
Lines: 16


> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:59:58AM +0100, Shiva Kerdel wrote:
>> In most cases, usleep_range is better than udelay, as the precise wakeup
>> from udelay is unnecessary.
> But, udelay does something different than usleep, are you sure you
> should be giving up the cpu at this point in time?
>
> Are you sure you are even in a function that is allowed to sleep?  I
> don't think that is the case for all of these at all, sorry, unless you
> have the hardware to test this change, I can't take it.
>
> greg k-h
I wasn't aware of this, thank you for pointing out.
Since I don't have this hardware, I'm unable to test the changes.

Shiva Kerdel