Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case

[Zhihui Zhang]

Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this
case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my
understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some
subtle details. Anyway, my point is about readability.

thanks,

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Zhihui Zhang <zzhsuny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that
>> LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case.  Also, each level (except
>> level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers.
>
> So instead of just covering what your patch does, can you explain in
> some detail why this patch is useful? What net effect does it bring?
> What sort of bugs would it solve?
>
> thanks
> -john