On 04-06-19, 16:47, Gary R Hook wrote: > Well, I was uncomfortable with documentation that didn't match behavior.
That is the right way :) > > I see two choices (and I just chose one to start a conversation): > > 1) Accept this patch, with an infinite timeout, or > 2) Leave the data type alone, but change the description to state that > timeout values up to hex 0xFFFFFFFF / decimal 4294967295 can be used, > emulating an "infinite" wait. A very long wait that eventually pops a > timer is probably preferable. I don't think there are any conversion > issues since the jiffy parameter to wait_event_freezable_timeout() is > converted to a long. I could be wrong about that. > > I'm happy to go with option (2). Please suggest a course of action. That looks sensible to me as well Thanks -- ~Vinod
