Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753237Ab3EMOZE (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2013 10:25:04 -0400 Received: from mga14.intel.com ([143.182.124.37]:24780 "EHLO mga14.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751589Ab3EMOZD (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 May 2013 10:25:03 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,662,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="240792755" Message-ID: <1368455078.16445.135.camel@intelbox> Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/11] sound/oxygen_io: take msecs_to_jiffies_min into use From: Imre Deak Reply-To: imre.deak@intel.com To: Takashi Iwai Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Daniel Vetter , Clemens Ladisch , Jaroslav Kysela , alsa-devel@alsa-project.org Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 17:24:38 +0300 In-Reply-To: References: <1368188011-23661-1-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com> <1368188011-23661-11-git-send-email-imre.deak@intel.com> Organization: Intel Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1637 Lines: 45 On Mon, 2013-05-13 at 16:00 +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > At Fri, 10 May 2013 15:13:29 +0300, > Imre Deak wrote: > > > > Use msecs_to_jiffies_min instead of open-coding the same. > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak > > --- > > sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > index 521eae4..132ecbe 100644 > > --- a/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > +++ b/sound/pci/oxygen/oxygen_io.c > > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int oxygen_ac97_wait(struct oxygen *chip, unsigned int mask) > > wait_event_timeout(chip->ac97_waitqueue, > > ({ status |= oxygen_read8(chip, OXYGEN_AC97_INTERRUPT_STATUS); > > status & mask; }), > > - msecs_to_jiffies(1) + 1); > > + msecs_to_jiffies_min(1)); > > This would change the behavior, I guess. Not to my understanding, the new macro should end up doing the same thing. > (Though, I'm not sure whether the original code was intentional.) Well, I only assumed that.. But using wait_event_timeout() without the +1 would make little sense to me. In that case we may not wait at all for the condition to become true, if we are close to the next scheduling clock tick. > And, isn't msecs_to_jiffies_min(1) identical with msecs_to_jiffies(1)? No, it should be one more in value. --Imre -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/