On Sun, 07 Jun 2015, David Miller wrote: > From: Nicholas Mc Guire <hof...@osadl.org> > Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:51:51 +0200 > > > @@ -517,7 +517,7 @@ static int cosa_probe(int base, int irq, int dma) > > */ > > set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > cosa_putstatus(cosa, SR_TX_INT_ENA); > > - schedule_timeout(30); > > + schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(300)); > > irq = probe_irq_off(irqs); > > /* Disable all IRQs from the card */ > > cosa_putstatus(cosa, 0); > > You are making these transformations completely inconsistently. > > You're converting it to msecs in some patches and here you are doing > something else. >
As noted in the cosa case the code predated configurable HZ so the 30 was definitely assuming HZ=100 and therefor it should probably be 300 now - I do not think that is inconsisten and it was explained in the patch. I only can make the HZ=100 assumption if the code predates configurable HZ otherwise I leave it at the nominal value and put a note in that it may be a significant change and needs review. What alternative would you suggest ? > Please do _all_ of these transformations consistently and in a way > that minimizes the chances of breaking things. > > And the only way to do that is to strictly convert these cases to > whatever it works out to when HZ=100 since that is strictly the > environment all of this old code was written in. > for the dscc4 case Im not sure - that seems to have gone in in 2.4 and that had HZ configurable. The cosa case was checked again 2.2.26 (no config HZ) and the timeout there was 30 -> 300ms. I think that this is consistent with respect to the limited available information of the timeout unit in the code. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
