[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ASoC: rt5651: use msleep for large delays
On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 06:06:58PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 03:06:45PM +0000, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 02:59:26PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > If you're doing conversions like this I'd expect us to be picking the
> > > lower number rather than the higher number - people are saying "wait for
> > > at least X and at most Y" and msleep() is "wait for at least X" so we
> > > should be picking X.
> > useleep_range() sets the timer to max and only if there happens to be a
> > timer between min and max uses that - so the mean of runs is generally
> > a bit above max. E.g.
> Yes, but as fairly recently discussed somewhere on the lists (and IIRC
> actually fixed) approximately no users expect or want that behaviour -
> it's a really confusing interface given that sleep functions almost
> always have a "delay up until X" interface and interfaces that can wake
> things up earlier than the expected delay generally flag that condition.
> The applications for the "delay for X but it's OK to wake me up this
> much earlier" are really quite limited. If you look at the conversions
> that were done to usleep_range() you'll notice that most of them follow
> this pattern and had their delays extended in the process.

True its an odd behavior - the point just was to change the actual behavior
as little from current state as one might expect. Anywa - will fix it up
then and resend - in this particular case it really makes little
difference - assuming that both the minimum and maximum value were
suitable to ensure that the writes had compled or it was actually a failure.


 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-11 20:00    [W:0.066 / U:0.720 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site