From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maximilian attems Subject: Re: [Kernel-janitors] Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep() Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 00:58:42 +0200 Sender: kernel-janitors-bounces@lists.osdl.org Message-ID: <20040901225841.GF7467@stro.at> References: <20040901210929.GA11442@bougret.hpl.hp.com> <20040901214003.GC7467@stro.at> <20040901214815.GA13071@bougret.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============9078948611254507==" Cc: kj , netdev@oss.sgi.com, jgarzik@pobox.com Return-path: To: jt@hpl.hp.com In-Reply-To: <20040901214815.GA13071@bougret.hpl.hp.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: kernel-janitors-bounces@lists.osdl.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --===============9078948611254507== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: > > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote: .. > > > > 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. sorry my woding was confusing: (HZ + 99) / 100 is correct! as msleep(10) -- maks kernel janitor http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ --===============9078948611254507== 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 --===============9078948611254507==--