Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers

["Manu Abraham" <abraham.manu@gmail.com>]

On 8/6/07, Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also
> > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken...
> >
> > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current
> > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he
> > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;)
>
> Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other
> current users too.
> Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's
> "best" for them?
>

You mean to say, the granularity of msleep is in mS with a tolerance
of +/- "n" mS whereas nanosleep would have the tolerance in nS ?
(ignoring all the discussions about hrtimers and their internal
design)

I guess many people are/were confused on the aspect that, a msleep(1)
meant sleep for a 1mS and nothing more. Well, this would explain, some
of my hair raising incidents, if i understood you correctly.

Since it is such a confusion, maybe it needs to be documented some
place, that people don't fall into the same trap.

Manu