lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 22 Jan 2003 11:14:14 -0800 (PST)
From"Randy.Dunlap" <>
SubjectRe: {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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:32    [from the cache]
©2003-2008