Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:23:48 +0200 | From | Dominik Brodowski <> | Subject | Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ? |
| |
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:12:48PM -0700, john stultz wrote: > I agree w/ Pavel that rounding up sounds better, but I can't get the > math to work, so this may be the best solution.
It's some strange sort of rounding, see my patch "3"...
> I'm also spinning up a patch w/ these changes to test, let me know how > your testing went and I'll do the same.
Testing went fine -- even for the PMTMR-based delay case [*].
Dominik
[*] though I noticed the cpufreq notifier breaks then: it updates loops_per_jiffy without evaluating if it's indeed TSC- or even frequency-based. It'll fail on cyclone, too, I think... - 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/
| |