Re: [patch 1/8] irda/act200l-sir: replace schedule_timeout() with msleep()

[Jean Tourrilhes <jt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:05:23PM +0200, janitor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > I would appreciate any comments from the janitor@sternweltens list. 
> uups mangled some text there sorry for this silly email.
> > 
> >     I already commented that I don't like the confusing msleep()
> > API and I prefer the more explicit schedule_timeout().
> >     But that's only me...
> > 
> >     Jean
> 
> hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
>       schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> 
> the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.

        I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
code.

> maks

        Jean