xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch 1/1] Update laptop mode control script with XFS_HZ=100

To: Bart Samwel <bart@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/1] Update laptop mode control script with XFS_HZ=100
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 08:45:38 +1000
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <40A1DB7B.2080600@xxxxxxxxx>; from bart@xxxxxxxxx on Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:08:27AM +0200
References: <E1BNdCk-0008BN-TJ@xxxxxxxxx> <20040511154057.6d6c193b.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <20040512090006.B362314@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40A1D7E3.8020700@xxxxxxxxx> <20040512010453.196fc8c9.akpm@xxxxxxxx> <40A1DB7B.2080600@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 10:08:27AM +0200, Bart Samwel wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > Bart Samwel <bart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >> >>aargh.  XFS is broken.  It shouldn't be exposing jiffy-based tunables 
> >> >>into
> >> >>/proc, or `mount -o remount' or whatever.
> >> >>
> >> >>It would be much better to rework XFS so that these user-visible tunables
> >> >>are in units of milliseconds, centiseconds or whatever.
> >>
> >> They're in USER_HZ since 2.6.6. Andrew, is that OK or should they really 
> >> be in some even more fixed unit?
> > 
> > All architectures have USER_HZ=100.  But it's a bit nicer and future-proof
> > to relabel it as centiseconds.
> 
> Agreed. Nathan, I'll make a patch for this.

I've already done that - I've sent it out to the other XFS
guys for review before I merge it in (haven't got to the
bottom of my mail box yet, so not sure if it survived that
process :)  ... I'll merge it later today if it looks OK.

thanks.

-- 
Nathan


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>