Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 13:05:12 +0100 (CET)
From: Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
To: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@hofr.at>
cc: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>,
        Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: add note on usleep_range range
In-Reply-To: <20161213091912.GA6347@osadl.at>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1612131304520.3207@hadrien>
References: <1481601523-14004-1-git-send-email-hofrat@osadl.org> <87r35ctcrp.fsf@intel.com> <20161213091912.GA6347@osadl.at>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1921
Lines: 52


On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 11:10:50AM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016, Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@osadl.org> wrote:
> > > useleep_range() with a delta of 0 makes no sense and only prevents the
> > > timer subsystem from optimizing interrupts. As any user of usleep_range()
> > > is in non-atomic context the timer jitter is in the range of 10s of
> > > microseconds anyway.
> > >
> > > This adds a note making it clear that a range of 0 is a bad idea.
> >
> > So I don't really have anything to do with the timer subsystem, I'm just
> > their "consumer", so take this with a grain of salt.
> >
> > Documentation is good, but I don't think this will be enough.
> >
> > I think the only thing that will work is to detect and complain about
> > things like this automatically. Some ideas:
> >
> > * WARN_ON(min == max) or WARN_ON_ONCE(min == max) in usleep_range()
> >   might be drastic, but it would get the job done eventually.
> >
> > * If you want to avoid the runtime overhead (and complaints about the
> >   backtraces), you could wrap usleep_range() in a macro that does
> >   BUILD_BUG_ON(min == max) if the parameters are build time constants
> >   (they usually are). But you'd have to fix all the problem cases first.
> >
> > * You could try (to persuade Julia or Dan) to come up with a
> >   cocci/smatch check for usleep_range() calls where min == max, so we
> >   could get bug reports for this. This probably works on expressions, so
> >   this would catch also cases where the parameters aren't built time
> >   constants.
> >
>
> I fully agree - without automation it is almost usless
> the coccinelle spatch is a seperate patch and it is tested butnot yet
> submitted.
>
> the spatch for this iss actually trivial
>
> @nulldelta@
> constant C;
> position p;
> @@
>
> * usleep_range@p(C,C)

People never use more complex expressions?

julia