On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 00:33 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:37 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> > I noticed that the patch changes the semantics of some of the wait_for
> > calls. Previously, many were called with a zero msleep parameter -
> > meaning the call would not msleep.
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:37 +0100, Peter Clifton wrote:
> I noticed that the patch changes the semantics of some of the wait_for
> calls. Previously, many were called with a zero msleep parameter -
> meaning the call would not msleep. With this patch, the cases below will
> now msleep(1), rather
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 17:56 +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> Jesse's feedback from using the wait_for() macro was that the msleep
> argument was that it was superfluous and made the macro more difficult
> to use and to read. As the actually amount of time to sleep is not
> critical, the crucial part is
Jesse's feedback from using the wait_for() macro was that the msleep
argument was that it was superfluous and made the macro more difficult
to use and to read. As the actually amount of time to sleep is not
critical, the crucial part is to sleep and let the processor schedule
something else whilst
