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? bye, Roman - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
