Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 22 Jan 2003 11:14:14 -0800 (PST) | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: {sys_,/dev/}epoll waiting timeout |
| |
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Jamie Lokier wrote:
| Ed Tomlinson wrote: | > Jamie Lokier wrote: | > | > > jtimeout = 0; | > > if (timeout) { | > > /* Careful about overflow in the intermediate values */ | > > if ((unsigned long) timeout < MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT / HZ) | > > jtimeout = (unsigned long)(timeout*HZ+999)/1000+1; | > > else /* Negative or overflow */ | > > jtimeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT; | > > } | > | > Why assume HZ=1000? Would not: | > | > timeout = (unsigned long)(timeout*HZ+(HZ-1))/HZ+1; | > | > make more sense? | | No, that's silly. Why do you want to multiply by HZ and then divide by HZ?
OK, I don't get it. All Ed did was replace 1000 with HZ and 999 with (HZ-1). What's bad about that? Seems to me like the right thing to do. Much more portable.
What if HZ changes? Who's going to audit the kernel for changes?
-- ~Randy
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |