Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030216AbWBMW3o (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:29:44 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030218AbWBMW3o (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:29:44 -0500 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:48100 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030216AbWBMW3n (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Feb 2006 17:29:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 23:29:28 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Ingo Molnar cc: Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, John Stultz Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] hrtimer: round up relative start time In-Reply-To: <20060213195550.GB30679@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <1139827927.4932.17.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20060213130143.GA10771@elte.hu> <20060213144403.GA21317@elte.hu> <20060213195550.GB30679@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1487 Lines: 34 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/