On Thu, 20 Jun 2013, Chen Gang wrote: > On 06/20/2013 03:47 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > If we assume "If there is nothing in tv2 which might come before the > found timer, then any timer in tv3 will ..." is correct. > > When we found a timer in 'tv1', we will not search all timers in 'tv2' > (we only search first looping of tv2 for the specific 'slot').
Yes, because that's how the timer wheel works. And I'm not going to explain you every little detail of it. > Is it still OK ? Yes, it is. > If you do not want to discuss with others, better quite politely, not > need judging or checking others, it is useless for the cooperation with > each other, is it right ? ;-) I discussed all your patches which fall into my area of responsibility with you and I explained to you very politely why your patches are incorrect. When I noticed, that you do not even understand how the timer wheel works in detail, which is necessary to understand why the code in __next_timer_interrupt() is correct, I asked you politely: > > Then I recommend that you to sit down and analyze the correctness of > > the code. And you answered: > That is only your recommend, not mean I have duty to. Right, it's only a recommendation. Though without proof of a failure, I'm not going to discuss that further and I'm not going to apply a patch. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/