On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 10:34 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 12/09/16 18:00, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > 
> > I also agree on the fact that most of the times ratelimit_us and
> > MIN_TIMER will be close enough (like in the example above) that it
> > won't probably matter much... but if someone set ratelimit_us to
> > something higher (say, 10ms --we accept values as big as the
> > timeslice,
> > which is 30ms b default) it may matter a bit.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> > 
> > If we decide not to care, and leave things as they are, I'd add a
> > comment saying that code is like that on purpose, so we won't trip
> > over
> > this again in 1 or 2 years. :-)
> Yeah, I think while we're thinking about it we might as well add in
> the
> MIN_TIMER thing you mention above (if you don't mind doing it).
> 
Sure I don't mind. I'll do it.

Thanks and Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)