On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > So, let me ask a direct question: What do you think is specifically > > wrong about changing the msleep() implementation as is done here? The > > behavior is clearly an improvement, so what is your objection on the > > flipside? > > Again, we have two different timer APIs for a reason
yes because we have different usage patterns for timers. (exact/course or expiring/not-typically-expiring; I know you have some other opinion here than other people). For this case it's relatively simple imo: The existing implementation has a *typical* behavior which is 100% to 2000% worse than what the user of the API asks for. And that is totally unneeded to be so crappy; it can be much more exact easily as shown by this patch. You keep claiming that hrtimers are so incredibly expensive; but for msleep()... which is mostly called during driver init ... I really don't buy that it's really expensive. We're not doing this a gazilion times per second obviously... -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org - 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/