> Do we really need both an inline and a non-inline version of the same
No, but we are in a stable series and it's part of an official header file.
> function? Certainly the time penalty for function-call overhead doesn't
> matter when you're going to sleep anyway!
Yes. And kernel size does matter. I consider an inline function a bad
idea there.
> More importantly, I don't like this notion of doing things differently
> depending on whether or not in_interrupt() is true. It doesn't take into
> account other things the programmer should be aware of, like whether
> interrupts are enabled or any spinlocks are held. IMO we should have a
> single non-inline function that always calls schedule_timeout(). If
> someone wants to use mdelay() instead, let them call mdelay() directly.
If that's consensus I'll hunt down wait_ms.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: SourceForge.net Broadband
Sign-up now for SourceForge Broadband and get the fastest
6.0/768 connection for only $19.95/mo for the first 3 months!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2562&alloc_id=6184&op=click
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
