Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 4:33 PM, Jan Kiszka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>
>>> Right. We are approximating a fraction with another fraction. But my
>>> first impression remains: I do not like the idea of making
>>> xnarch_ns_to_tsc wrong because xnarch_tsc_to_ns is wrong.
>>>
>>  Well, my first impression was originally the same: If we still need llimd
>> in the ns-to-tsc patch, then we should keep the precise way. But that was
>> wrong as this thread demonstrated. We have to ensure that
>> ns_to_tsc(tsc_to_ns(x)) remains x with only minor last-digit errors. So
>> either use scaled math parameters in both ways or fall back to the original
>> calculation.
> 
> Now that I think about it, this scaled math approach is about taking
> an approximation of the CPU frequency, which is already approximative.
> So, I will not oppose longer to your patch.
>

Ok, so I take this for a green light to commit too. Please commit.

>>  However the final decision for 2.5 is (pro or contra scaled math), at least
>> for 2.4.x we have to fix things now without turning the upside down. That
>> means apply my patch or revert scaled-math optimizations for all archs.
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Philippe.

_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to