From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nishanth Aravamudan Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:44:00 +0000 Subject: [KJ] Re: [PATCH 9/21] char/ipmi_si_intf: replace schedule_timeout() Message-Id: <20050117224400.GN24698@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============037079639482551663==" List-Id: References: <41EC332A.8020603@mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <41EC332A.8020603@mvista.com> To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org --===============037079639482551663== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 04:41:15PM -0600, Corey Minyard wrote: > Ok, I was unaware of the difference between msleep and mdelay (I was > actually reading "mdelay"). > > Actually, in the code I want to wait as small a time as possible without > spinning. The operations being waited for generally happen in ~500us, > which is far too long to spin, but 10ms would be non-optimal if a faster > increment was available. So I think it is still best as it is. Yup, sounds right to me. Thanks for your help & responses! -Nish --===============037079639482551663== 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 --===============037079639482551663==--