From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261334AbVGWKv5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:51:57 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261587AbVGWKv4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:51:56 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:47532 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261334AbVGWKvQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:51:16 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 12:50:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Arjan van de Ven cc: Nishanth Aravamudan , Andrew Morton , domen@coderock.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clucas@rotomalug.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add schedule_timeout_{interruptible,uninterruptible}{,_msecs}() interfaces In-Reply-To: <1122078715.5734.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <20050707213138.184888000@homer> <20050708160824.10d4b606.akpm@osdl.org> <20050723002658.GA4183@us.ibm.com> <1122078715.5734.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Fri, 22 Jul 2005, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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 ;) What's wrong with using jiffies? It's simple and the current timeout system is based on it. Calling it something else doesn't suddenly give you more precision. bye, Roman