On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:06:45PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:59:26PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > If you're doing conversions like this I'd expect us to be picking the > > lower number rather than the higher number - people are saying "wait for > > at least X and at most Y" and msleep() is "wait for at least X" so we > > should be picking X. > useleep_range() sets the timer to max and only if there happens to be a > timer between min and max uses that - so the mean of runs is generally > a bit above max. E.g. Yes, but as fairly recently discussed somewhere on the lists (and IIRC actually fixed) approximately no users expect or want that behaviour - it's a really confusing interface given that sleep functions almost always have a "delay up until X" interface and interfaces that can wake things up earlier than the expected delay generally flag that condition. The applications for the "delay for X but it's OK to wake me up this much earlier" are really quite limited. If you look at the conversions that were done to usleep_range() you'll notice that most of them follow this pattern and had their delays extended in the process.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
