From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752048AbYIANdh (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:37 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750961AbYIANd3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:29 -0400 Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.28]:15603 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750762AbYIANd3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 09:33:29 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=W1M9ENziU0yMV1LND7h4vch0D5Dkgcj7TfgUCHSF0jxigRHtA20lsuiRwGfSpOItdv 6mcu83Mta4X4DxK46oFBueD+SHL5pdPIDCw3g7hW8y56bpZWk97iB1vcfzDdwPgygWQs kuzjDrVKCxzg9dSATimYqRIlmRI+ZJnF7vbKg= Message-ID: <5ff4a1e50809010633q6d69bcabtac734d2d8e2c6d88@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 14:33:27 +0100 From: "Matt Fleming" To: "Thomas Gleixner" Subject: Re: ktime_set() does not check for nanoseconds > one second Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5ff4a1e50809010338o77fffec4w625ed48b3987d51@mail.gmail.com> <5ff4a1e50809010457l7051b7e8vc7f86d68ae42e529@mail.gmail.com> <5ff4a1e50809010611x3d8940e0n282da0b1ec5b321b@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2008/9/1 Thomas Gleixner : > On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Matt Fleming wrote: > >> 2008/9/1 Thomas Gleixner : >> > >> > Won't work with arbitrary numbers. i.e. >= 2* NSEC_PER_SEC. Looking at >> > it, I'm even less convinced that it is a good idea. >> > >> > tglx >> > >> >> Do you have another suggestion? Or should I just account for the >= 1 >> sec case in the calling code? > > If you use runtime generated nsec values, why don't you use > ktime_add_ns() and feed the nsec value into it ? > Hmm.. good point. I'll do it that way. Thanks for your help Thomas.