From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jean Tourrilhes Subject: Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 14:48:15 -0700 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20040901214815.GA13071@bougret.hpl.hp.com> References: <20040901210929.GA11442@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20040901214003.GC7467@stro.at> Reply-To: jt@hpl.hp.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: To: netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com, kj Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040901214003.GC7467@stro.at> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@sternwelten.at wrote: > > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. > uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email. > > > > I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep() > > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout(). > > But that's only me... > > > > Jean > > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100. > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than > schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100); > > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep. I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100 expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA code. > maks Jean