[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 12:12:48PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> I agree w/ Pavel that rounding up sounds better, but I can't get the
> math to work, so this may be the best solution.

It's some strange sort of rounding, see my patch "3"...

> I'm also spinning up a patch w/ these changes to test, let me know how
> your testing went and I'll do the same.

Testing went fine -- even for the PMTMR-based delay case [*].


[*] though I noticed the cpufreq notifier breaks then: it updates
loops_per_jiffy without evaluating if it's indeed TSC- or even
frequency-based. It'll fail on cyclone, too, I think...
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [W:0.044 / U:1.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site