[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a3647bf-91a8-7a5f-9edb-c792a6031f57@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 07:33:40 +0200
From: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>
To: Simon Arlott <simon@...iron.net>, Oliver Neukum <oneukum@...e.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] docs: ABI: sysfs-tty: close times are in hundredths of a
second
On 24. 08. 23, 9:18, Simon Arlott wrote:
> The times for close_delay and closing_wait are in hundredths of a
> second, not milliseconds. Fix the documentation instead of trying
> to use millisecond values (which would have to be rounded).
>
> Signed-off-by: Simon Arlott <simon@...iron.net>
> ---
> If you'd prefer, I can fold the second part of this into my previous
> patch which shouldn't have documented it as milliseconds in the first
> place (but I copied it from the other entry).
>
> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-tty | 12 ++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-tty b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-tty
> index e04e322af568..6ee878771f51 100644
> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-tty
> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-tty
> @@ -87,7 +87,8 @@ What: /sys/class/tty/ttyS<x>/close_delay
> Date: October 2012
> Contact: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
> Description:
> - Show the closing delay time for this port in ms.
> + Show the closing delay time for this port in hundredths
> + of a second.
>
> These sysfs values expose the TIOCGSERIAL interface via
> sysfs rather than via ioctls.
> @@ -96,7 +97,8 @@ What: /sys/class/tty/ttyS<x>/closing_wait
> Date: October 2012
> Contact: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
> Description:
> - Show the close wait time for this port in ms.
> + Show the close wait time for this port in hundredths of
> + a second.
>
> These sysfs values expose the TIOCGSERIAL interface via
> sysfs rather than via ioctls.
Could you send these two hunks as a separate patch? It's correct
regardless of your other patch.
And I would use "centiseconds" instead, which is used (IMO) in these cases.
thanks,
--
js
suse labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists