Re: [PATCH] Addschedule_timeout_{interruptible,uninterruptible}{,_msecs}() interfaces

[Arjan van de Ven]

On Sat, 2005-07-23 at 12:50 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
> > Also I'd rather not add the non-msec ones... either you're raw and use
> > HZ, or you are "cooked" and use the msec variant.. I dont' see the point
> > of adding an "in the middle" one. (Yes this means that several users
> > need to be transformed to msecs but... I consider that progress ;)
> 
> What's wrong with using jiffies? 

A lot of the (driver) users want a wallclock based timeout. For that,
miliseconds is a more obvious API with less chance to get the jiffies/HZ
conversion wrong by the driver writer.

> It's simple and the current timeout 
> system is based on it. Calling it something else doesn't suddenly give you 
> more precision.

It's not about precision, it's about making the new API (which is
intended to be a simplification already due to sucking in the state
setting) match the intent closer.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/