Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday())

From: Matthew Wilcox (willy@debian.org)
Date: Fri Mar 14 2003 - 09:48:59 EST

Next message: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu: "Re: Never ever send Pavel private mail unless you want him to publish it."
Previous message: Larry McVoy: "Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you"
In reply to: Eric Piel: "Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday())"
Next in thread: David Mosberger: "Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday())"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:34:36PM +0100, Eric Piel wrote:
> I think lines like that from patch-2.5.64 are very suspicious to be
> related to the bug:
> + base->timer_jiffies = INITIAL_JIFFIES;
> + base->tv1.index = INITIAL_JIFFIES & TVR_MASK;
> + base->tv2.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> TVR_BITS) & TVN_MASK;
> + base->tv3.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+TVN_BITS)) & TVN_MASK;
> + base->tv4.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+2*TVN_BITS)) &
> TVN_MASK;
> + base->tv5.index = (INITIAL_JIFFIES >> (TVR_BITS+3*TVN_BITS)) &
> TVN_MASK;

No, I don't think so. Those lines are for starting `jiffies' at a very
high number so we spot jiffie-wrap bugs early on.

-- 
"It's not Hollywood.  War is real, war is primarily not about defeat or
victory, it is about death.  I've seen thousands and thousands of dead bodies.
Do you think I want to have an academic debate on this subject?" -- Robert Fisk
-
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/

Next message: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu: "Re: Never ever send Pavel private mail unless you want him to publish it."
Previous message: Larry McVoy: "Re: Never ever use word BitKeeper if Larry does not like you"
In reply to: Eric Piel: "Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday())"
Next in thread: David Mosberger: "Re: [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday())"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 15 2003 - 22:00:39 EST