On 8/6/07, Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also > > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken... > > > > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current > > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he > > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;) > > Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other > current users too. > Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's > "best" for them? >
You mean to say, the granularity of msleep is in mS with a tolerance of +/- "n" mS whereas nanosleep would have the tolerance in nS ? (ignoring all the discussions about hrtimers and their internal design) I guess many people are/were confused on the aspect that, a msleep(1) meant sleep for a 1mS and nothing more. Well, this would explain, some of my hair raising incidents, if i understood you correctly. Since it is such a confusion, maybe it needs to be documented some place, that people don't fall into the same trap. Manu - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
