On Monday 05 December 2016 10:04:27, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Alexander Stein wrote:
> > - schedule_timeout(2);
> > + schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(2));
>
> NACK.
>
> So I don't remember why I wrote this code, but I don't think I was
> expecting it to be 2ms. Instead, I think I just wanted it to be some
> delay, but I believed that schedule_timeout(1) was too short or would be
> "optimized" out somehow.
>
> Note that right below this, I do:
>
> if (qe_port->wait_closing) {
> /* Wait a bit longer */
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> schedule_timeout(qe_port->wait_closing);
> }
>
> And wait_closing is a number of jiffies, so I knew that
> schedule_timeout() took jiffies as a parameter.
>
> So I think I'm going to NACK this patch, since I believe I knew what I
> was doing when I wrote it five years ago.
Okay, I was just wondering why the timeout is dependant on the timer tick.
That didn't seem obvious to me.
Rethinking about this, I would rather replace those lines with msleep instead.
Best regards,
Alexander
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
