On 17.08.2005 [12:51:17 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> ~
> >>IMNSHO we should not get too parental with kernel only interfaces.
> >>Adding 1 is easy enough for the caller and even easier to explain in the
> >>instructions (i.e. this call sleeps for X jiffies
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
IMNSHO we should not get too parental with kernel only interfaces.
Adding 1 is easy enough for the caller and even easier to explain in the
instructions (i.e. this call sleeps for X jiffies edges). This allows
the caller to do more if needed and, should he ever
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
IMNSHO we should not get too parental with kernel only interfaces.
Adding 1 is easy enough for the caller and even easier to explain in the
instructions (i.e. this call sleeps for X jiffies edges). This allows
the caller to do more if needed and, should he ever
On 17.08.2005 [12:51:17 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
IMNSHO we should not get too parental with kernel only interfaces.
Adding 1 is easy enough for the caller and even easier to explain in the
instructions (i.e. this call sleeps for X jiffies edges). This
On 16.08.2005 [17:39:11 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> >
> >>Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
> >>timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
>
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
> Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
> timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
> repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
> where the jiffies
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
where the jiffies edge
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we
On 16.08.2005 [17:39:11 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 04.08.2005 [09:45:55 -0700], George Anzinger wrote:
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating
On 8/4/05, George Anzinger wrote:
> Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> ~
> > Sorry, I forgot that sys_nanosleep() also always adds 1 to the request
> > (to account for this same issue, I believe, as POSIX demands no early
> > return from nanosleep() calls). There are some other locations where
> >
On 8/4/05, George Anzinger wrote:
> Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
> timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
> repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
> where the jiffies edge is in the repeating
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
Sorry, I forgot that sys_nanosleep() also always adds 1 to the request
(to account for this same issue, I believe, as POSIX demands no early
return from nanosleep() calls). There are some other locations where
similar
+ (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec)
This is not
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
where the jiffies edge is in the repeating case. The +1 is needed ONLY
for the
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
where the jiffies edge is in the repeating case. The +1 is needed ONLY
for the
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
Sorry, I forgot that sys_nanosleep() also always adds 1 to the request
(to account for this same issue, I believe, as POSIX demands no early
return from nanosleep() calls). There are some other locations where
similar
+ (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec)
This is not
On 8/4/05, George Anzinger george@mvista.com wrote:
Uh... PLEASE tell me you are NOT changing timespec_to_jiffies() (and
timeval_to_jiffies() to add 1. This is NOT the right thing to do. For
repeating times (see setitimer code) we need the actual time as we KNOW
where the jiffies edge is in
On 8/4/05, George Anzinger george@mvista.com wrote:
Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
~
Sorry, I forgot that sys_nanosleep() also always adds 1 to the request
(to account for this same issue, I believe, as POSIX demands no early
return from nanosleep() calls). There are some other locations where
On 03.08.2005 [17:51:47 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> On 03.08.2005 [16:20:57 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> >
> > > +unsigned int __sched schedule_timeout_msecs(unsigned int timeout_msecs)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long
On 03.08.2005 [17:51:47 -0700], Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
On 03.08.2005 [16:20:57 +0200], Roman Zippel wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 1 Aug 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
+unsigned int __sched schedule_timeout_msecs(unsigned int timeout_msecs)
+{
+ unsigned long expire_jifs;
+
+
20 matches
Mail list logo
