lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] New timeofday proposal (v.A1)
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004, john stultz wrote:

> Well, its not *that* bad. Similar to the ntp_scale() function, it would
> look something like:
>
> if (interval <= offset_len)
> return (interval * singleshot_mult)>>shift;
> else {
> cycle_t v1,v2;
> v1 = (offset_len * singleshot_mult)>>shift;
> v2 = (interval-offset_len)*adjusted_mult)>>shift;
> return v1+v2;
> }
>
> Where:
> singleshot_mult = original_mult + ntp_adj + ss_mult
> and
> adjusted_mult = original_mult + ntp_adj
>
>

Yuck. Do we support this kind of thing today? Support for periods of a
tick or so is not an issue right?

-
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 14:08    [W:0.268 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site