> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:05:37 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> said:
Linus> Hmm.. I don't think your patch is wrong per se, but I do
Linus> think it's a bit too subtle. I'd almost rather make
Linus> "jiffies_to_msecs()" just test for overflow instead, and that
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:05:37 -0800 (PST), Linus Torvalds [EMAIL
PROTECTED] said:
Linus Hmm.. I don't think your patch is wrong per se, but I do
Linus think it's a bit too subtle. I'd almost rather make
Linus jiffies_to_msecs() just test for overflow instead, and that
Linus should also
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
>
> How about something along the lines of the attached? The test in
> msecs_to_jiffies is non-sensical for HZ>=1000
Hmm.. I don't think your patch is wrong per se, but I do think it's a bit
too subtle. I'd almost rather make "jiffies_to_msecs()"
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, David Mosberger wrote:
How about something along the lines of the attached? The test in
msecs_to_jiffies is non-sensical for HZ=1000
Hmm.. I don't think your patch is wrong per se, but I do think it's a bit
too subtle. I'd almost rather make jiffies_to_msecs() just
4 matches
Mail list logo