Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
Hi Olivier,
On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Olivier Croquette wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
Linus, Andrew, do you consider this critical enough to be merged to
the v2.4 tree?
No. I'd expect this would hurt more people than it would benefit.
Probably.
Does that mean that the kernel 2.4 will keep this bug for ever?
Probably, yes. I've never heard such complaints before your message.
The right way to do it seems something else BTW:
quoting Nish Aravamudan (http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/29/240):
Your patch is the only way to guarantee no early timeouts, as far as I know.
Really, what you want is:
on adding timers, take the ceiling of the interval into which it could be added
on expiring timers, take the floor
This combination guarantees no timers go off early (and takes away
many of these corner cases). I do exactly this in my patch, btw.
IMNSHO that is just another way of saying "add 1 to the jiffie count" which is
what the proposed patch does.
--
George Anzinger [email protected]
HRT (High-res-timers): http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |