Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 03 Nov 2019 19:03:36 -0800
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CAMEGPiqq1aoVNgezkx5DdQO7Jm2NL+pZzzY-N0AoU=+s470LcQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190620062246.2665-1-e5ten.arch@gmail.com> <20191029210250.17007-1-e5ten.arch@gmail.com> <CBCA4048-A9C1-42E6-A821-1EE36AE8CDC7@zytor.com> <CAMEGPioV_MTKO9DK6JT5355b7x0py-D_K467etDDnxWSYAbEig@mail.gmail.com> <40DC5B42-6C0D-4A5B-B23E-884ADB0108F0@zytor.com> <CAMEGPiqq1aoVNgezkx5DdQO7Jm2NL+pZzzY-N0AoU=+s470LcQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] replace timeconst bc script with an sh script
To:     Ethan Sommer <e5ten.arch@gmail.com>
CC:     Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@vaga.pv.it>,
        "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>,
        Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@ideasonboard.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
        John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Corey Minyard <cminyard@mvista.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
From:   hpa@zytor.com
Message-ID: <EC20169B-26FF-4AC0-AABE-B6FFB0B3AA40@zytor.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On November 3, 2019 3:57:06 PM PST, Ethan Sommer <e5ten=2Earch@gmail=2Ecom>=
 wrote:
>> The point isn't to make it work *now*, but getting it to *stay* work=2E
>Since the only thing that can change to affect the outcome of the
>script
>or program is the value of CONFIG_HZ, isn't knowing that it works
>within
>a range of any reasonable values to set CONFIG_HZ to enough to know
>that
>it will stay working? I just tested again using the bc script and my C
>program, and this time I tested every possible value up to 100000, and
>they both still matched output=2E It doesn't seem like there's something
>that would cause the C program to stop working in the future due to
>precision issues=2E

No, it's not=2E Because some time we are going to want to change the way t=
he constants we need, or use them for something else, and be so on=2E
--=20
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail=2E Please excuse my brevity=2E