Hi,
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > What makes you think the comment is correct? This comment was added at
> > 2.4.3, while schedule_timeout() has this behaviour since it was added at
> > 2.1.127.
>
> Fair enough. Should we change the comment?
It can't hurt to fix the comme
On 04.08.2005 [20:59:50 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> > The comment for schedule_timeout() claims:
> >
> > * Make the current task sleep until @timeout jiffies have
> > * elapsed.
> >
> > Currently, it does not do so. I was simply try
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> The comment for schedule_timeout() claims:
>
> * Make the current task sleep until @timeout jiffies have
> * elapsed.
>
> Currently, it does not do so. I was simply trying to make the function
> do what it claims it does.
What makes you th
Roman Zippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Andrew, please drop this patch.
Well I was sitting on them with the intention of taking a look later and
trying to work out what the heck you two have been going on about.
But maybe dropping them means that we'll later get a clear and concise
descripti
On 04.08.2005 [11:38:33 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andrew, please drop this patch.
> Nish, please stop fucking around with kernel APIs.
The comment for schedule_timeout() claims:
* Make the current task sleep until @timeout jiffies have
* elapsed.
Currently, it does not do so. I w
Hi,
Andrew, please drop this patch.
Nish, please stop fucking around with kernel APIs.
On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > The "jiffies_to_msecs(msecs_to_jiffies(timeout_msecs) + 1)" case (when the
> > process is immediately woken up again) makes the caller suspectible to
> > t
6 matches
Mail list logo
