Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

2017-01-24 Thread Zhihui Zhang
Ah, I see your point. Thanks for the detail explanation. -Zhihui On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Zhihui Zhang wrote: > >> Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this > > That's fine. > >> case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LV

Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

2017-01-23 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Sat, 21 Jan 2017, Zhihui Zhang wrote: > Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this That's fine. > case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my > understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some > subtle details. Anyway, my point i

Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

2017-01-21 Thread Zhihui Zhang
Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some subtle details. Anyway, my point is about readability. thanks, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, J

Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

2017-01-20 Thread John Stultz
On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Zhihui Zhang wrote: > Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that > LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case. Also, each level (except > level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers. So instead of just covering what yo

[PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

2017-01-02 Thread Zhihui Zhang
Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case. Also, each level (except level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers. Signed-off-by: Zhihui Zhang --- kernel/time/timer.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+