| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20100803191049.GC1522@ucw.cz> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 21:12:38 +0200 From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz> To: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@...eaurora.org> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, apw@...onical.com, corbet@....net Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] timer: Added usleep[_range] timer On Wed 2010-07-28 12:33:03, Patrick Pannuto wrote: > After writing both documentation and a checkpatch rule explaining > why the usleep API should never be used, it occurred to me that > perhaps such an API should never be added :) - at least not in its > previous form. > > This iteration is similar, with the notable difference that now > usleep has a "built-in slack" of 200%. This is analogous to msleep, > which has a built-in slack of 0.4% (since it relies on legacy timers, > which have a built-in slack of 0.4%). 200% slack is significantly > greater than 0.4%, but the scale of usleep is also significantly > different than that of msleep, and I believe 200% to be a sane > default. So, I do msleep(1 second) and it will delay for 3 seconds? Thats excessive, and will be annoying/plain to see with just eyes. Better select reasonable default (1%?) and let people who care switch to msleep_range... Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html -- 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