On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:05 -0800, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> Quoting Joe Perches (2014-02-04 13:21:02)
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 12:43 -0800, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > > Checkpatch reports several warnings in hibernate.c
> > > printk use removed, long lines wrapped, whitespace cleanup,
> > > extend short msleeps, while loops on two lines.
> > []
> > > diff --git a/kernel/power/hibernate.c b/kernel/power/hibernate.c
> > []
> > > @@ -765,7 +762,7 @@ static int software_resume(void)
> > > if (isdigit(resume_file[0]) && resume_wait) {
> > > int partno;
> > > while (!get_gendisk(swsusp_resume_device, &partno))
> > > - msleep(10);
> > > + msleep(20);
> >
> > What good is changing this from 10 to 20?
> >
> > > @@ -776,8 +773,9 @@ static int software_resume(void)
> > > wait_for_device_probe();
> > >
> > > if (resume_wait) {
> > > - while ((swsusp_resume_device = name_to_dev_t(resume_file)) == 0)
> > > - msleep(10);
> > > + while ((swsusp_resume_device =
> > > + name_to_dev_t(resume_file)) == 0)
> > > + msleep(20);
> >
> > here too.
>
> Thanks Joe!
>
> I'm happy to make whatever change is best. I just ran into one
> checkpatch warning around a printk I indented and figured I'd try to get
> them all if I could.
Shutting up checkpatch for the sake of shutting of
checkpatch is sometimes not the right thing to do.
> The delays in question didn't appear timing critical as both are looping
> waiting for device discovery to complete. They're only enabled when using
> the resumewait command line parameter.
Any time it happens faster doesn't hurt and
can therefore could resume faster no?
> Is this an incorrect checkpatch warning? The message from checkpatch
> implies using msleep for smaller values can be misleading.
That's true, but it doesn't mean it's required
to change the code.
> - Why not msleep for (1ms - 20ms)?
> Explained originally here:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/250
> msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and
> will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any
> value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this
> is not the desired behavior.
>
> When I look at kernel/timers.c in my current kernel, I see msleep is
> using msecs_to_jiffies + 1, and on my current platform this appears to
> be ~20msec as the jiffies are 10ms.
And on platforms where HZ is 1000, it's
still slightly faster.
I'd just leave it alone.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>