From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maximilian attems Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2004 10:03:22 +0000 Subject: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace Message-Id: <20040902100322.GD1876@stro.at> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============87304602687430211==" List-Id: References: <200409021135.57632.margitsw@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <200409021135.57632.margitsw@t-online.de> To: Margit Schubert-While Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, kj --===============87304602687430211== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Margit Schubert-While wrote: > On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Maximilian scribeth: > > it shouldn't hinder 2.6 in it's progression. > I consider this a regression. > As schedule_timeout is used elesewhere in the prism54 code, > we are using a consistent and documented method. you didn't answer to the unit argument in favour of msleep. shure msleep is also consistent and documented. -- maks kernel janitor http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ --===============87304602687430211== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors --===============87304602687430211==-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maximilian attems Subject: Re: [patch 8/8] prism54/islpci_dev: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 12:03:22 +0200 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040902100322.GD1876@stro.at> References: <200409021135.57632.margitsw@t-online.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@oss.sgi.com, kj Return-path: To: Margit Schubert-While Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200409021135.57632.margitsw@t-online.de> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Margit Schubert-While wrote: > On Thu, 02 Sep 2004, Maximilian scribeth: > > it shouldn't hinder 2.6 in it's progression. > I consider this a regression. > As schedule_timeout is used elesewhere in the prism54 code, > we are using a consistent and documented method. you didn't answer to the unit argument in favour of msleep. shure msleep is also consistent and documented. -- maks kernel janitor http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/