[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C50A08A.6070108@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 14:26:34 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com, corbet@....net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] timer: Added usleep[_range] timer
On 7/28/2010 2:23 PM, Andrew Morton wrote
, it would never have happened.
>> In that case, it would pus
>> h me in the direction of only providing
>> usleep_range, and thus forcing people to think about it that way;
>> leave slack decisions to people who know what tolerances are acceptable.
>>
> Well, I _think_ that would be a good approach. I'm 45%/55% on that one
> and would be interested in other opinions ;)
>
>
for new interfaces I'd really like a "range only" option... make people
think.
And passing in a 0 is easy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists