On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:09 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> > In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with
> > a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second
> > timeout. This can
On 28.2.2019 9.09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with
a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second
timeout. This can translates to 5 million
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with
> a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second
> timeout. This can translates to 5 million calls to udelay(1). By its
> very nature,
In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with
a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second
timeout. This can translates to 5 million calls to udelay(1). By its
very nature, udelay() is not meant to be precise, it only guarantees to
delay a
4 matches
Mail list logo