On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 10:10:44AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 01/12/2017 05:21 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> > >> the delays here are in the 10 to 20ms range so msleep() will do - no > >> need to burden the highres timer subsystem. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> > >> Problem found by coccinelle script > >> > >> While msleep(10) has a worst case uncertainty of 10ms (on HZ=100 systems) > >> this seems ok here as the delays are not called frequently (init and > >> reset functions) > > > > > > By the same logic, this is not much of a burden on the high-res timer > > subsys though. > > > >> and the uncertainty of 10ms fits the permitted range of > >> the original usleep_ranges(). > > > > > > Either way this patch is fine with me. > > I'd rather not because next will come a checkpatch warrior and I will > have to convince them why msleep is OK here. And another one, and > another one... :( > there is no checkpatch warning here - checkpatch only throws warnings of range < 20ms if hardcoded but this is in a #define so its fine with respect to checkpatch. But if there are concerns with this - thats fine - its most likely not critical - the goal is to have a consistent usage of highres timers - including limiting there use to the cases where its really needed. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
