From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751039AbdAUPGI (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:06:08 -0500 Received: from mail-qt0-f194.google.com ([209.85.216.194]:32885 "EHLO mail-qt0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750893AbdAUPGC (ORCPT ); Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:06:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1483391659-9752-1-git-send-email-zzhsuny@gmail.com> From: Zhihui Zhang Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:06:00 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] timers: Reconcile the code and the comment for the 250HZ case To: John Stultz Cc: Thomas Gleixner , lkml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sure, I believe that comments should always match the code. In this case, using either LVL_SIZE - 1 or LVL_SIZE is fine based on my understanding about 20 days ago. But I could be wrong and miss some subtle details. Anyway, my point is about readability. thanks, On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 5:41 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 1:14 PM, Zhihui Zhang wrote: >> Adjust the time start of each level to match the comments. Note that >> LVL_START(n) is never used for n = 0 case. Also, each level (except >> level 0) has more than enough room to accommodate all its timers. > > So instead of just covering what your patch does, can you explain in > some detail why this patch is useful? What net effect does it bring? > What sort of bugs would it solve? > > thanks > -john