Re: [PATCH 11/11] sound/oxygen_io: take msecs_to_jiffies_min into use

Takashi Iwai
2013-05-13T14:35:22Z

At Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:38 +0300,
Imre Deak wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:00 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
> > At Fri, 10 May 2013 15:13:29 +0300,
> > Imre Deak wrote:
> > >
> > > Use msecs_to_jiffies_min instead of open-coding the same.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > > index 521eae4..132ecbe 100644
> > > --- a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > > +++ b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c
> > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int oxygen_ac97_wait(struct oxygen *chip, unsigned int mask)
> > > wait_event_timeout(chip->ac97_waitqueue,
> > > ({ status |= oxygen_read8(chip, OXYGEN_AC97_INTERRUPT_STATUS);
> > > status & mask; }),
> > > - msecs_to_jiffies(1) + 1);
> > > + msecs_to_jiffies_min(1));
> >
> > This would change the behavior, I guess.
>
> Not to my understanding, the new macro should end up doing the same
> thing.

Ah, OK, I just saw your patch 01/11.

But then msecs_to_jiffies_min() sounds confusing, if it plus one
implicitly.

Takashi

> > (Though, I'm not sure whether the original code was intentional.)
>
> Well, I only assumed that.. But using wait_event_timeout() without the
> +1 would make little sense to me. In that case we may not wait at all
> for the condition to become true, if we are close to the next scheduling
> clock tick.
>
> > And, isn't msecs_to_jiffies_min(1) identical with msecs_to_jiffies(1)?
>
> No, it should be one more in value.