On 05/11/2012 05:54 PM, 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. > > v2: Fix rebase error (Chris) > Return proper time even in wedged + signal case (Chris + Ben) > Use timespec constructs (Ben) > Didn't take Daniel's advice regarding the Frankenstein-ness of the > function. I did try his advice, but in the end I liked the way the > original code looked, better. > > v3: Make wakeups far less frequent for infinite waits (Chris) > > v4: Remove dummy_wait variable (Daniel) > Use raw monotonic time instead of jiffies (made the code a bit cleaner) (Ben) > Added a couple of warnings (Ben) > > Signed-off-by: Ben Widawsky<ben at bwidawsk.net> I couldn't find much to bikeshed here except for question on patch 3 and one small typo on Patch 4. So for the series: Reviewed-by: Eugeni Dodonov <eugeni.dodonov at intel.com>
