Le 16/09/2024 à 22:20, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
Hi,
a question about which sleeping function should be used in
acpi_os_sleep()
started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.
The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers
the
following things:
- Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and
timer.c
into a separate file
- Update function descriptions of sleep related functions
- Change fsleep() to reflect reality
- Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers-
howto.rst"
- Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the
outdated
documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name
The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux-
devel.git timers/misc
Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,
not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to
micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])
The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually
constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute
a few things at compilation time.
There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are
Typo: there was *no* consensus...
touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at
runtime and a few bytes of code?
CJ
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/
f0361b83a0a0b549f8ec5ab8134905001a6f2509.1659126514.git.christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx/
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/
all/03c2bbe795fe4ddcab66eb852bae3715@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
