* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > In other words: your patch re-introduces half of the bug on low-res
> > platforms. Users doing a series of one-shot itimer calls would be
> > exposed to the same kind of (incorrect and unnecessary) summing-up
> > errors. What's the point?
>
> I don't fully agree with the interval behaviour either, [...]
i.e. you'd want to reintroduce the comulative interval rounding bug that
users noticed? Or do you have some other way to change it? I really dont
see your point.
> [...] but here one could at least say it's correct on average. [...]
i'm not sure i understand. Are you implying by this that some current
code is not "correct on average"?
> Since hrtimer is also used for nanosleep(), which I consider more
> important (as e.g. posix timer), this one should at least be correct
> and consistent with previous 2.6 releases. [...]
for me it's simple: i dont think we should reintroduce the same type of
concept that was clearly causing regressions in previous 2.6 releases.
Thomas, what do you think?
Ingo
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
