From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Jun 5 09:35:31 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id JAA11057 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:35:31 -0700 Received: from miller.cs.uwm.edu (miller.cs.uwm.edu [129.89.35.13]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA11050 for ; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 09:35:30 -0700 Received: (from james@localhost) by miller.cs.uwm.edu (8.6.10/8.6.10) id LAA26598; Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:35:04 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Jun 1995 11:35:04 -0500 From: Jim Lowe Message-Id: <199506051635.LAA26598@miller.cs.uwm.edu> To: bde@zeta.org.au, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Interval timer/System clock Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk > I "fixed" hzto() by adding 1 to allow for the current partial clock tick. I looked at the code this morning and I am a little curious as to why this was changed. There are 3 places in the kern directory where hzto() is called. Two places are for the real time timers and the other is for the select system call. If I subtract 1 from hzto() in these 3 places -- the timing seems correct. I am curious why the 1 tick was added to hzto()? I can subtract one from the hzto in kern_time.c and sys_generic.c but wouldn't it make more sense to have hzto() return 1 less inorder to get the correct hz values for time? Or am I missing something that is real obvious? -Jim