On Wed, 02 Jul 2025, Andi Shyti <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Jani, > > On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 05:51:19PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> Sometimes it's necessary to poll with long sleeps, and the accuracy of >> usleep_range() is overkill. Use the flexible sleep helper fsleep() for >> sleeping in the read_poll_timeout() family of macros to automatically >> choose the appropriate method of waiting. >> >> Functionally there are a few consequences for existing users: >> >> - 10 us and shorter sleeps will use usleep() instead of >> usleep_range(). Presumably this will not be an issue. >> >> - When it leads to a slack of less than 25%, msleep() will be used >> instead of usleep_range(). Presumably this will not be an issue, given >> the sleeps will be longer in this case. >> >> - Otherwise, the usleep_range() slack gets switched from the begin of >> the range to the end of the range, i.e. [sleep/2+1..sleep] -> >> [sleep..sleep+sleep/2]. In theory, this could be an issue in some >> cases, but difficult to determine before this hits the real world. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jani Nikula <[email protected]> > > this patch makes sense to me even with the fixes in the commit > message suggested byt Geert. > > Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <[email protected]>
Thanks! However I think Ville's series [1] should have more priority here. It's mostly orthogonal, but IMO it's more important and should go first. I can follow up with this one afterwards. BR, Jani. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] -- Jani Nikula, Intel
