On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:51:55AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 09 February 2005 11:36 am, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 11:01:45AM -0800, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > No, if we say, "this paramater is in milliseconds", like you did, I > > don't see the need to change this everywhere. I think the 1000 value is > > even clearer than before (no need to go remember that HZ is number of > > jiffies per second, etc.) > > > > David, you still object? > > Yes, it's still a magic number. Using milliseconds == good, > but that function is already trouble -- too many parameters, > too many strings of error-prone non-symbolic constants. > > And I've seen multiple developer errors specifically with > respect to that parameter. Which is why I'm sensitive to > changes that make additional errors more likely ... such as > taking semantic clues out of calls that get cut/pasted all > over the place.
David, these are very good points, and I'm starting to agree with you, but then I envision corner cases where the sleep is for 1.5 seconds... Is 3 * (MSECS_IN_SECS / 2) really all that much clearer than 1500? I definitely understand the concern regarding errors; I will consider alternatives that perhaps lead to cleaner solutions. Thanks again for your input! -Nish ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
