Re: [PATCH v2] timers: Fix usleep_range() in the context of wake_up_process()

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> wrote:
> > ...but I'm not sure I agree with you about what to do here.
> > Specifically I think that whatever we do we need to try to keep
> > schedule_hrtimeout_range() and schedule_timeout() parallel.  For
> > schedule_timeout() we have the same comments but it's my understanding
> > that you'd expect that wake_up_process() would wake it up.  In any
> > case, if wake_up_process() doesn't wake it up then it seems like
> > msleep() and schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() are the same function
> > with two names, when in fact one is implemented in terms o the other.
> 
> Sounds reasonable.
> It would be nice to add a note to all of those function comments
> though to make them sound less absolute -
> "at least @timeout time is guaranteed to pass before the routine
> returns unless the current task is explicitly woken up, (e.g. by
> wake_up_process())"

Agreed.