Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Subject | Re: [patch 11/13] s390: instruction processing damage handling. | From | Martin Schwidefsky <> | Date | Fri, 28 Apr 2006 11:24:44 +0200 |
| |
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:39 +0200, Heiko Carstens wrote: > > > +++ linux-2.6-patched/drivers/s390/s390mach.c 2006-04-24 16:47:28.000000000 +0200 > > ... > > > +#define MAX_IPD_TIME (5 * 60 * 100 * 1000) /* 5 minutes */ > > > > I'm no s390 expert, but shouldn't the above use something like HZ? > > Using HZ here feels just wrong to me. MAX_IPD_TIME has nothing to do with the > timer frequency. In this case it's used to tell if there were 30 machine > checks within the last 5 minutes (in a usec granularity). It's just by > accident that this could be expressed using HZ. > (5 * 60 * USEC_PER_SEC) would probably look better...
Using HZ would be wrong. The check that uses MAX_IPD_TIME compares it against the result of a get_clock() call. That uses the TOD Clock directly, there is no dependency on HZ.
-- blue skies, Martin.
Martin Schwidefsky Linux for zSeries Development & Services IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |