From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030369AbWD1IjG (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:39:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030372AbWD1IjG (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:39:06 -0400 Received: from mtagate4.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.153]:5962 "EHLO mtagate4.de.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030369AbWD1IjF (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Apr 2006 04:39:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2006 10:39:03 +0200 From: Heiko Carstens To: Josef Sipek Cc: Martin Schwidefsky , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@osdl.org Subject: Re: [patch 11/13] s390: instruction processing damage handling. Message-ID: <20060428083903.GA11819@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> References: <20060424150544.GL15613@skybase> <20060428073358.GA15166@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060428073358.GA15166@filer.fsl.cs.sunysb.edu> User-Agent: mutt-ng/devel-r802 (Linux) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 04:33:58AM -0400, Josef Sipek wrote: > On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 05:05:44PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > +++ linux-2.6-patched/drivers/s390/s390mach.c 2006-04-24 16:47:28.000000000 +0200 > ... > > +#define MAX_IPD_TIME (5 * 60 * 100 * 1000) /* 5 minutes */ > > I'm no s390 expert, but shouldn't the above use something like HZ? Using HZ here feels just wrong to me. MAX_IPD_TIME has nothing to do with the timer frequency. In this case it's used to tell if there were 30 machine checks within the last 5 minutes (in a usec granularity). It's just by accident that this could be expressed using HZ. (5 * 60 * USEC_PER_SEC) would probably look better...