Re: [PATCH 01/13] hrtimer: round up relative start time

[Ingo Molnar]

* Roman Zippel <zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > In other words: your patch re-introduces half of the bug on low-res 
> > platforms. Users doing a series of one-shot itimer calls would be 
> > exposed to the same kind of (incorrect and unnecessary) summing-up 
> > errors. What's the point?
> 
> I don't fully agree with the interval behaviour either, [...]

i.e. you'd want to reintroduce the comulative interval rounding bug that 
users noticed? Or do you have some other way to change it? I really dont 
see your point.

> [...] but here one could at least say it's correct on average. [...]

i'm not sure i understand. Are you implying by this that some current 
code is not "correct on average"?

> Since hrtimer is also used for nanosleep(), which I consider more 
> important (as e.g. posix timer), this one should at least be correct 
> and consistent with previous 2.6 releases. [...]

for me it's simple: i dont think we should reintroduce the same type of 
concept that was clearly causing regressions in previous 2.6 releases.  
Thomas, what do you think?

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/