[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3q3yni3umfwq6mhghcoyqfpvji2a2toumo3elgjq44tqvxwuag@jzci6ssmkrf3>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 12:18:31 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Ferenc Fejes <ferenc@...es.dev>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>, Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@...ux.dev>,
Eduard Zingerman <eddyz87@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Matt Bobrowski <mattbobrowski@...gle.com>, Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] bpf: add bpf_msleep_interruptible() kfunc
On (25/05/15 10:59), Ferenc Fejes wrote:
> > +__bpf_kfunc unsigned long bpf_msleep_interruptible(unsigned int msecs)
> > +{
> > + return msleep_interruptible(msecs);
>
> Perhaps exposing fsleep instead of msleep? fsleep might fallback to msleep if no
> better mechanism exists or if the sleep duration is >1000us.
I like the TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE semantics of msleep_interruptible().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists