From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 17:30:58 +0000 Subject: Re: [KJ] Fwd: [Patch] Add HZ values and time_after() macros in Message-Id: <20060829173058.GE11548@parisc-linux.org> List-Id: References: <82faac5b0608290944o2452a904x4826da8bbd944daa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <82faac5b0608290944o2452a904x4826da8bbd944daa@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 10:00:08AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > Yes, that is true. I support your changes in general, but given that > HZ00 in original 2.6, I would suggest that 50 jiffies is not the same > as HZ/2. It should either be HZ/20 or, preferably, msecs_to_jiffies(50). > If the maintainer then replies saying they had never changed the code > from 2.4's HZ to 2.6, then we can proceed accordingly and your current > change is more appropriate, but I wouldn't assume that to be the case. It's easy enough to look at 2.4: if(((jiffies - timer)>50)||((dev->ffL.tcq_rd=dev->host_tcq_wr))){ So the patch is a bugfix. _______________________________________________ Kernel-janitors mailing list Kernel-janitors@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel-janitors