Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-11 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:07:29PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:00:46AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:54:26PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > > Index: ipmi.c > > > === > > > RCS

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-10 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 10:00:46AM +0100, Claudio Jeker wrote: > On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:54:26PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > > Index: ipmi.c > > === > > RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/dev/ipmi.c,v > > retrieving revision 1.112 > > diff -u

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-10 Thread Claudio Jeker
On Mon, Dec 07, 2020 at 10:54:26PM -0600, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:43:32PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:04:52 -0800 > > > > > > Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 > > > y

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-08 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2020/12/07 22:54, Scott Cheloha wrote: > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:43:32PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:04:52 -0800 > > > > > > Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 > > > years, because it's br

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-07 Thread Scott Cheloha
On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 11:43:32PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:04:52 -0800 > > > > Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 > > years, because it's broken on some machines, so, this code is not > > necess

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-02 Thread Mark Kettenis
> From: "Constantine A. Murenin" > Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 14:04:52 -0800 > > Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 > years, because it's broken on some machines, so, this code is not > necessarily guaranteed to be correct as-is. > > http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bi

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-02 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2020/12/02 14:04, Constantine A. Murenin wrote: > Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 > years, because it's broken on some machines, so, this code is not > necessarily guaranteed to be correct as-is. yes I have a recollection that it may have not worked on some

Re: ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-02 Thread Constantine A. Murenin
Not sure if you've seen it, but ipmi(4) has been disabled for over 12 years, because it's broken on some machines, so, this code is not necessarily guaranteed to be correct as-is. http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/arch/i386/conf/GENERIC#rev1.632 http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvs

ipmi(4): ipmi_poll_thread(): tsleep(9) -> tsleep_nsec(9)

2020-12-02 Thread Scott Cheloha
Hi, ipmi(4) is one of the few remaining callers of tsleep(9). I want to convert it to use tsleep_nsec(9) but I need some clarification on what the code in question is doing. In ipmi_poll_thread() we initialize all the sensors in a loop. Between each get_sdr() call we tsleep(9) for 1 tick. So, I