lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case
Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this
case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my
understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some
subtle details. Anyway, my point is about readability.

thanks,

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Zhihui Zhang <zzhsuny@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that
>> LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case. Also, each level (except
>> level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers.
>
> So instead of just covering what your patch does, can you explain in
> some detail why this patch is useful? What net effect does it bring?
> What sort of bugs would it solve?
>
> thanks
> -john

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-21 16:06    [W:0.337 / U:1.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site