[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801310251090.17507@scrub.home>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 02:55:35 +0100 (CET)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] correct inconsistent ntp interval/tick_length usage
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, john stultz wrote:
> +/* Because using NSEC_PER_SEC would be too easy */
> +#define NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH ((((s64)TICK_USEC*NSEC_PER_USEC*USER_HZ)+CLOCK_TICK_ADJUST)/NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ)
Why are you using USER_HZ? Did you test this with HZ!=100?
Anyway, please don't make more complicated than it already is.
What I said previously about the update interval is still valid, so the
correct solution is to use the simpler NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH calculation
from my last mail and to omit the correction for NO_HZ.
bye, Roman
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists