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

[Roman Zippel]

Hi,

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > 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.

And I don't want to expand on it, because otherwise this thread goes 
completely elsewhere again and I want to keep the focus on this patch.
These are two different problems, which have have only in common that it's 
about rounding of time.

> > 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.  

You have a weird definition of "regression", since when is a bug fix a 
regression? We can discuss whether it's the correct fix and I described 
earlier in this thread the basic problem, which the current 2.6 behaviour 
fixes. I'd really prefer if we could based on that discuss a proper fix, 
instead of just falling back to the wrong 2.4 behaviour.

bye, Roman
-
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/