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
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
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
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
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(+
5 matches
Mail list logo