On Monday 05 December 2016 10:04:27, Timur Tabi wrote:

Alexander Stein wrote:

quoted

-		schedule_timeout(2);
+		schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(2));

NACK.

So I don't remember why I wrote this code, but I don't think I was
expecting it to be 2ms.  Instead, I think I just wanted it to be some
delay, but I believed that schedule_timeout(1) was too short or would be
"optimized" out somehow.

Note that right below this, I do:

	if (qe_port->wait_closing) {
		/* Wait a bit longer */
		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
		schedule_timeout(qe_port->wait_closing);
	}

And wait_closing is a number of jiffies, so I knew that
schedule_timeout() took jiffies as a parameter.

So I think I'm going to NACK this patch, since I believe I knew what I
was doing when I wrote it five years ago.

Okay, I was just wondering why the timeout is dependant on the timer tick. 
That didn't seem obvious to me.
Rethinking about this, I would rather replace those lines with msleep instead.

Best regards,
Alexander