On Thu, 20 Oct 2016, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 4:29 AM, Doug Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > ...but I'm not sure I agree with you about what to do here. > > Specifically I think that whatever we do we need to try to keep > > schedule_hrtimeout_range() and schedule_timeout() parallel. For > > schedule_timeout() we have the same comments but it's my understanding > > that you'd expect that wake_up_process() would wake it up. In any > > case, if wake_up_process() doesn't wake it up then it seems like > > msleep() and schedule_timeout_uninterruptible() are the same function > > with two names, when in fact one is implemented in terms o the other. > > Sounds reasonable. > It would be nice to add a note to all of those function comments > though to make them sound less absolute - > "at least @timeout time is guaranteed to pass before the routine > returns unless the current task is explicitly woken up, (e.g. by > wake_up_process())"
Agreed.
