From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262258AbVGWAdu (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:33:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262255AbVGWAdl (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:33:41 -0400 Received: from [216.208.38.107] ([216.208.38.107]:28551 "EHLO OTTLS.pngxnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262258AbVGWAco (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:32:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add schedule_timeout_{interruptible,uninterruptible}{,_msecs}() interfaces From: Arjan van de Ven To: Nishanth Aravamudan Cc: Andrew Morton , domen@coderock.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clucas@rotomalug.org In-Reply-To: <20050723002658.GA4183@us.ibm.com> References: <20050707213138.184888000@homer> <20050708160824.10d4b606.akpm@osdl.org> <20050723002658.GA4183@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 20:31:55 -0400 Message-Id: <1122078715.5734.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.2 (2.2.2-5) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > How does something like this look? If this looks ok, I'll send out > bunches of patches to add users of the new interfaces. I'd drop the FASTCALL stuff... nowadays with regparm that's automatic and the cost of register-vs-stack isn't too big anyway Also I'd rather not add the non-msec ones... either you're raw and use HZ, or you are "cooked" and use the msec variant.. I dont' see the point of adding an "in the middle" one. (Yes this means that several users need to be transformed to msecs but... I consider that progress ;)