From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:03:42 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Todd Poynor , devel list Subject: Re: RFC: 405LP sleep Message-ID: <20021223150342.GA15397@opus.bloom.county> References: <1040330490.29647.340.camel@granite.austin.ibm.com> <3E023BD8.8050107@mvista.com> <1040427074.1095.23.camel@granite.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1040427074.1095.23.camel@granite.austin.ibm.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:31:14PM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Thu, 2002-12-19 at 15:36, Todd Poynor wrote: > > > + jiffies += rtc_secs_elapsed * HZ; > > > > If jiffies is jumped forward then can kernel events (such as those > > waiting on a kernel timer) be missed? > > I certainly *hope* the check is >= rather than == ... :) They all should in fact be using time_after(...) or so, to deal correctly with a jiffies wrap. But from what I recall of doing a massive kick of the jiffies (to test some jiffies wrap thing) in early 2.4 I believe, things can become somewhat unhappy. Think of a device which happens to be 'sleeping' while the user is on vacation or so. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/