On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:19 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > Most comments last time were favorable. The one dissenter was Roman, > > who worries about the overhead of using hrtimers for this operation; my > > understanding is that he would rather see a really_msleep() function for > > those who actually want millisecond resolution. I'm not sure how to > > characterize what the cost could be, but it can only be buried by the > > fact that every call sleeps for some number of milliseconds. On my > > system, the several hundred total msleep() calls can't cause any real > > overhead, and almost all happen at initialization time. > > The main point is still that these are two _different_ APIs for different > usages, so I still prefer to add a hrsleep() instead.
I would actually prefer it the other way around; call the not-so-accurate one "msleep_approx()" or somesuch, to make it explicit that the sleep is only approximate... - 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/