[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E603DC592C92B54A89CEF6B0919A0B1CAFDE223C6D@SOLO.hq.farsitecommunications.com>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 08:09:19 +0100
From: Kevin Curtis <Kevin.Curtis@...site.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"joe@...ches.com" <joe@...ches.com>
CC: "manuel.schoelling@....de" <manuel.schoelling@....de>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] wan: time_before()
Hi,
Yes, a usleep(10) would be just fine.
Regards
Kevin
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:davem@...emloft.net]
Sent: 26 May 2014 05:41
To: joe@...ches.com
Cc: manuel.schoelling@....de; Kevin Curtis; netdev@...r.kernel.org; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wan: time_before()
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 10:58:52 -0700
> On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 19:32 +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
>> To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons
>> are modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
>
> Sensible change, but it seems these should be
> udelay(some_constant) instead of a a rather variable time wait based
> on a system/config defined jiffies.
Agreed, this code probably wants udelay(10) or something like that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists