Christophe JAILLET [off-list ref] writes:

Le 16/09/2024 à 22:20, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :

quoted

Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :

quoted

Hi,

a question about which sleeping function should be used in 
acpi_os_sleep()
started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.

The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers 
the
following things:

- Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and 
timer.c
   into a separate file

- Update function descriptions of sleep related functions

- Change fsleep() to reflect reality

- Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
   documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers- 
howto.rst"

- Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the 
outdated
   documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name

The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux- 
devel.git timers/misc

Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>

Hi,

not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to 
micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])

The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually 
constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute 
a few things at compilation time.

There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are 

Typo: there was *no* consensus...

quoted

touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at 
runtime and a few bytes of code?

Sorry for the late reply. I'll check it and will come back to you.

Thanks,
	Anna-Maria