lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Oct]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch] jiffies wraparound [Re: 2.1.125 Show stopper list: Draft]
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998, Matti Aarnio wrote:

> You would get Alpha users to worry about wrap-around in
>about 24.3 days ... (2^31/HZ seconds) No thanks.

Alpha users can' t set a timer for more than 2^32/1024 sec anyway. This is
the only reason of my first thought to use an int.

For this reason using `long timeout' cause on alpha to set _no_ timer if
schedule_timeout() will be recalled with MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT == (~0UL >>
1).

I am asking myself if make sense at all to set a timer with
MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT everywhere. Should not we simply call schedule() with
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in such cases (without using
schedule_timeout(MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) ?).

Andrea Arcangeli


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.197 / U:0.744 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site