RE: [PATCH] wan: time_before()

[Kevin Curtis]

Hi,
    Yes, a usleep(10) would be just fine.


Regards

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 26 May 2014 05:41
To: joe@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: manuel.schoelling@xxxxxx; Kevin Curtis; netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kernel-janitors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wan: time_before()

From: Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 10:58:52 -0700

> On Sun, 2014-05-25 at 19:32 +0200, Manuel Schölling wrote:
>> To be future-proof and for better readability the time comparisons 
>> are modified to use time_before() instead of plain, error-prone math.
> 
> Sensible change, but it seems these should be
> udelay(some_constant) instead of a a rather variable time wait based 
> on a system/config defined jiffies.

Agreed, this code probably wants udelay(10) or something like that.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/