Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 13 May 2013 16:35:12 +0200 | From | Takashi Iwai <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 11/11] sound/oxygen_io: take msecs_to_jiffies_min into use |
| |
At Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:38 +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:00 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > At Fri, 10 May 2013 15:13:29 +0300, > > Imre Deak wrote: > > > > > > Use msecs_to_jiffies_min instead of open-coding the same. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@intel.com> > > > --- > > > sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > > index 521eae4..132ecbe 100644 > > > --- a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > > +++ b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int oxygen_ac97_wait(struct oxygen *chip, unsigned int mask) > > > wait_event_timeout(chip->ac97_waitqueue, > > > ({ status |= oxygen_read8(chip, OXYGEN_AC97_INTERRUPT_STATUS); > > > status & mask; }), > > > - msecs_to_jiffies(1) + 1); > > > + msecs_to_jiffies_min(1)); > > > > This would change the behavior, I guess. > > Not to my understanding, the new macro should end up doing the same > thing.
Ah, OK, I just saw your patch 01/11.
But then msecs_to_jiffies_min() sounds confusing, if it plus one implicitly.
Takashi
> > (Though, I'm not sure whether the original code was intentional.) > > Well, I only assumed that.. But using wait_event_timeout() without the > +1 would make little sense to me. In that case we may not wait at all > for the condition to become true, if we are close to the next scheduling > clock tick. > > > And, isn't msecs_to_jiffies_min(1) identical with msecs_to_jiffies(1)? > > No, it should be one more in value.
| |