On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:06:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. True its an odd behavior - the point just was to change the actual behavior as little from current state as one might expect. Anywa - will fix it up then and resend - in this particular case it really makes little difference - assuming that both the minimum and maximum value were suitable to ensure that the writes had compled or it was actually a failure. thx! hofrat _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
