From: Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 14:47:34 +0200
Shuya MAEDA wrote :
while (__delta USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }, but I think it should be
while (__delta = USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }. Is it right?
I agree, good catch :-)
Applied, thanks a lot.
-
To unsubscribe from
Hello.
In PSCHED_TADD2, if delta is less than tv.tv_usec (so, less than
USEC_PER_SEC too) then tv_res will be before tv. The
affectation (tv_res).tv_usec = __delta; is wrong. The same applies to
PSCHED_TADD.
You are right. It is my mistake.
I think the correct fix is simply to restore the
Shuya MAEDA wrote :
while (__delta USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }, but I think it should be
while (__delta = USEC_PER_SEC){ ... }. Is it right?
I agree, good catch :-)
Thanks.
--
Guillaume
In PSCHED_TADD and PSCHED_TADD2, if delta is less than tv.tv_usec (so, less
than USEC_PER_SEC too) then tv_res
Hello,
This patch:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=4ee303dfeac6451b402e3d8512723d3a0f861857
looks wrong.
In PSCHED_TADD2, if delta is less than tv.tv_usec (so, less than
USEC_PER_SEC too) then tv_res will be before tv. The
affectation
I found two problems in PSCHED_TADD() and PSCHED_TADD2().
1) These function increment tv_sec if tv_usec 100.
But I think it should if tv_usec = 100.
2) tv_usec became 120 or more when I used CBQ and
experimented it. It is not correct to exceed 100
because tv_usec is
