From: Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 00:08:23 +0200 (CEST)
> On Tue, 14 Apr 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Monday 13 April 2015 23:42:03 Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > > >> > > Question: this looks to me like it sets both the minimum and maximum >> > > time to priv->tx_coalesce_usecs/2, when the intention was to set >> > > the minimum to priv->tx_coalesce_usecs/2 and the maximum to >> > > priv->tx_coalesce_usecs. Am I missing something subtle here, or did >> > > you just misread my original intention from the botched code? >> > >> > Yes, I missed that. Simple fix for this is: >> > >> > unsigned long t_ns = priv->tx_coalesce_usecs * NSEC_PER_USEC / 2; >> > >> > hrtimer_start_range_ns(&priv->tx_coalesce_timer, ns_to_ktime(t_ns), >> > t_ns, HRTIMER_MODE_REL); >> >> Ah, good. I have to admit that I'd probably make the same mistake >> again if I was to do this for another driver and you hadn't sent >> the fix. The hrtimer_set_expires_range() function just looked like >> it had been designed for the use case I was interested in ;-). >> >> Any idea how to prevent the next person from making the same mistake? > > Yes. Documentation :) Can I get a respin of this patch with the above? -- 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/
