On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:19 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> > Most comments last time were favorable. The one dissenter was Roman,
> > who worries about the overhead of using hrtimers for this operation; my
> > understanding is that he would rather see a really_msleep() function for
> > those who actually want millisecond resolution. I'm not sure how to
> > characterize what the cost could be, but it can only be buried by the
> > fact that every call sleeps for some number of milliseconds. On my
> > system, the several hundred total msleep() calls can't cause any real
> > overhead, and almost all happen at initialization time.
>
> The main point is still that these are two _different_ APIs for different
> usages, so I still prefer to add a hrsleep() instead.
I would actually prefer it the other way around; call the
not-so-accurate one "msleep_approx()" or somesuch, to make it explicit
that the sleep is only approximate...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
