Re: [PATCH] HZ==100 assumptions

Jamie Lokier (lkd@tantalophile.demon.co.uk)
Thu, 29 Jul 1999 00:22:11 +0200


Pauline Middelink wrote:
> Oh, ok. Than perhaps we need to investigate what the original
> author wanted, just a short delay (HZ/100 is good enough) or
> indeed 1 jiffie or HZ/18. My feeling is that 10ms is good
> enough...

The driver got HZ/100 when running the device driver on an x86. It's
most likely that those drivers were only ever tested on an x86 with HZ
== 100.

Unless the driver is still being actively maintained, it's irrelevant
what the original author wanted. Any change made now should make the
driver behave the same as it always has done because that's all that's
been tested on real hardware.

-- Jamie

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