Re: HZ, preferably as small as possible

Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:24:11 +0100

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 02:56:14AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Unfortunately, the hack must remain for another 4 years or so.
> Maybe that's not so bad though. I prefer it over this:
>
> #ifdef __386__
> #define HZ 100
> #endif
> #ifdef __IA64__
> #define HZ 1024
> #endif
> #ifdef __ARM__
> #define HZ 128 // if they settle on this

Ehh? It's been 100 on the majority of ARM. If it's different in libproc,
the libproc is broken. One (broken) machine type decided it would be a
good idea to change it to 1000. Since no one has paid any attention
to this machine for some time, it's support code will get dropped if
they don't fix it before 2.6.

-- 
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk)                The developer of ARM Linux
             http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/