Re: [PATCH 1/4] timer: Added usleep[_range] timer

[Patrick Pannuto]

On 07/28/2010 01:58 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 13:47:46 -0700
> Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> This is different from the patch I merged and I'm not seeing any
>>> explanation for the change.
>>>
>>> The implementation of usleep() looks odd.  The longer we sleep, the
>>> greater the possible inaccuracy.  A code comment which explains the
>>> thinking and which warns people about the implications is needed.
> 
> I wanna code comment!
> 

I understand -- will do (if this even survives, which is unlikely)

> My main concern is that someone will type usleep(50) and won't realise
> that it goes and sleeps for 100 usecs and their code gets slow as a
> result.  This sort of thing takes *years* to discover and fix.  If we'd
> forced them to type usleep_range() instead, it would never have happened.

In that case, it would push me in the direction of only providing
usleep_range, and thus forcing people to think about it that way;
leave slack decisions to people who know what tolerances are acceptable.

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum
--
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/