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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:30 EST