On Wed 2010-07-28 12:33:03, Patrick Pannuto wrote:
quoted text
> After writing both documentation and a checkpatch rule explaining
> why the usleep API should never be used, it occurred to me that
> perhaps such an API should never be added :) - at least not in its
> previous form.
> 
> This iteration is similar, with the notable difference that now
> usleep has a "built-in slack" of 200%. This is analogous to msleep,
> which has a built-in slack of 0.4% (since it relies on legacy timers,
> which have a built-in slack of 0.4%). 200% slack is significantly
> greater than 0.4%, but the scale of usleep is also significantly
> different than that of msleep, and I believe 200% to be a sane
> default.

So, I do msleep(1 second) and it will delay for 3 seconds? Thats
excessive, and will be annoying/plain to see with just eyes. Better
select reasonable default (1%?) and let people who care switch to
msleep_range...
							Pavel

-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/