From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932750AbXGPOJc (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:09:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932630AbXGPOJO (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:09:14 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:58600 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932618AbXGPOJM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jul 2007 10:09:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:09:04 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Roman Zippel Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] msleep() with hrtimers Message-ID: <20070716140904.GA15028@elte.hu> References: <19044.1184539364@lwn.net> <20070716114734.GA12010@elte.hu> <20070716115744.GA14131@elte.hu> <20070716121906.GA18169@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -1.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Roman Zippel wrote: > One question here would be, is it really a problem to sleep a little > more? Another possibility would be to add another sleep function, > which uses hrtimer and could also take ktime argument. i'm not sure how this helps your argument, could you please explain it more verbosely? (because when i assumed the obvious, you called it an insult - so please dont leave any room for assumptions and remove any ambiguity - especially as our communication seems to be marred by what appears to be frequent misunderstandings ;-) Ingo