On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:40:03PM +0200, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Sep 2004, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
..
> > 
> > hmm we have still archs were HZ < 100.
> > i find msleep use msecs units a lot more readable than
> > 	schedule_timeout((HZ + 99) / 100);
> > 
> > the schedule_timeout(HZ/100) gets safely converted with msleep.
> 
> 	I don't have complain about converting the (HZ + 99) / 100
> expressions to something saner. My beef is the fact that msleep hide
> the fact that a schedule might happen. This is important in the IrDA
> code.

sorry my woding was confusing:
(HZ + 99) / 100 is correct!
as msleep(10)
 
--
maks
kernel janitor  	http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/