Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c

Adrian Bunk wrote:

I have read the hep text, but are the advantages of HZ == 300 reallyvisible or was this more theoretical?
In the latter case, we might remove the HZ == 300 choice instead.


Well, we have, for various architectures:

HZ == 48, 100, 128, 250, 256, 300, 1000, 1024

You'd have to kill 48, 128, 256, 300 and 1024.

	-hpa

-
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/

References:
- [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c
  - From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c
  - From: Adrian Bunk <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: [GIT PULL] please pull infiniband.git
Next by Date: Re: + restore-missing-sysfs-max_cstate-attr.patch added to -mm tree
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]