On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:14:42PM -0700, George Anzinger wrote:
> 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.
Hi George,
OK - I'll write a test case to confirm there are no such longer delay
regressions as Paulo suggests.
Thanks for your advice.
-
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]
| |
 |