On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:00:20 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 04:03:06PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > Insert a wait parameter in the code so we can possibly timeout on a > > seqno wait if need be. The code should be functionally the same as > > before because all the callers will continue to retry if an > > arbitrary timeout elapses. > > > > We'd like to have nanosecond granularity, but the only way to do > > this is with hrtimer, and that doesn't fit well with the needs of > > this code. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky <ben at bwidawsk.net> > > I have to admit, I'm a bit unhappy with this swiss-army-tool > wait_seqno and what it looks like. What about copy&pasting > __wait_seqno_timeout, which is always interruptible? > -Daniel I'm going to put the onus on you for this bikeshed to test it, and see how you like it. I have tried have the other function, and I felt this one looked better. Though I assume I have to fix the rebase error that Chris pointed out anyway. So I'll do a v3 with the separate function *after* you confirm you really want it. Otherwise, you'll just get the rebase fail fix. Ben
