Re: Wrapping jiffies [was Re: udev and devfs - The final word]

Re: Wrapping jiffies [was Re: udev and devfs - The final word]

[Norman Diamond]

Pavel Machek wrote:

> BTW, as we are currently in stable series, it might be good idea to
> make jiffies start at zero...

I disagree.  The importance of fixing bugs does not decrease in stable.
Hiding bugs is still the opposite of fixing bugs.

Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of stable, but I expected stable to mean
that efforts tend more towards fixing things so they work properly, and
unstable meant that efforts tend more towards adding features even though
they're broken at first.  Hiding a broken thing is still the opposite of
fixing a broken thing.

> Hopefully jiffie wrap had enough testing during stable...

I think you mean unstable, in which case I agree with this half of what I
think you meant.  This still doesn't give any reason to switch back to
hiding things.  In fact this doesn't give any reason to switch from a
technique that "hopefully [...] had enough testing" to a different
technique, even if logically the different technique doesn't need as much
testing.

Wrapping jiffies [was Re: udev and devfs - The final word]

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> actively do things that are "silly" on purpose. For example, for 
> debugging, we start the "jiffies" counter not at zero, but at -300. That's 
> patently _silly_, but it was very useful in finding the cases where the 
> rare general case was not handled correctly.

BTW, as we are currently in stable series, it might be good idea to
make jiffies start at zero... Hopefully jiffie wrap had enough testing
during stable...

								Pavel
-- 
When do you have a heart between your knees?
[Johanka's followup: and *two* hearts?]