Re: [PATCH] fix nanosleep() granularity bumps

[Andrew Morton]

george anzinger <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Here is a fix for the problem that eliminates the index from the 
> structure.  The index ALWAYS depends on the current value of 
> base->timer_jiffies in a rather simple way which is I exploit.  Either 
> patch works, but this seems much simpler...

Seems to be a nice change.  I think it would be better to get Tim's fix into
Linus's tree and let your rationalisation bake for a while in -mm.

There is currently a mysterious timer lockup happening on power4 machines. 
I'd like to keep these changes well-separated in time so we can get an
understanding of what code changes correlate with changed behaviour.

There are timer changes in Linus's post-2.5.65 tree and your patch generates
zillions of rejects against everything.  Can you send me a diff against
Linus's latest sometime?