On Monday 21 November 2011 04:37:02 Bruce Evans wrote:
> pause() grew some additional complications that I don't like. Hans
> noticed that DELAY(n) overflows for large n on arm. So pause() now
> avoids passing large n to DELAY(). Probably no other callers of
> DELAY() do this, and no callers of
On Sun, 20 Nov 2011, Warner Losh wrote:
Is this right? Passing 0 to timo causes a panic? That can't be good.
Because it reverses the natural order of conversations.
On Nov 20, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Log:
Given that the typical usage of pause() is pause("zzz", hz /
Is this right? Passing 0 to timo causes a panic? That can't be good.
Wanrer
On Nov 20, 2011, at 1:36 AM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> Author: hselasky
> Date: Sun Nov 20 08:36:18 2011
> New Revision: 227749
> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227749
>
> Log:
> Given that the typica
Author: hselasky
Date: Sun Nov 20 08:36:18 2011
New Revision: 227749
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/227749
Log:
Given that the typical usage of pause() is pause("zzz", hz / N), where N can
be greater than hz in some cases, simply ignore a timeout value of zero.
Suggested by: B
