Re: is anyone maintaining hifn(4)?

Sorry, took me a bit to get a round tuit!

> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 02:15:22 -0700
> From: emily ingalls <[email protected]>
> 
> > 3. mstohz turns out to be kind of a lousy API -- it doesn't (always?)
> >   round up, so you should use MIN(1, mstohz(10)) in case anyone tries
> >   to run this code with HZ=10 in which case mstohz(10) = 0 leads to
> >   no pause at all.
> 
> i'm think you meant meant MAX(1, mstohz(10)) here, i don't think MIN
> makes sense unless i'm misunderstanding.

Correct!

> aside from that point: i believe i've addressed the other points you
> mentioned, and an updated patch follows. let me know if you have any
> further comments on this or if there's something i missed.

Patch looks good to my eyeballs, but it appears to have gotten mangled
somewhere along the line, maybe from copying & pasting from a terminal
instead of saving the diff output to a file?

Also, it looks like this patch is against netbsd-9 rather than HEAD,
right?  (Not a big deal if so, should be easy to adapt.)

> i've played around with this a bit on a Cyrix 6x86 system, a dual
> Pentium II system, and my 486 system. everything still works as
> expected on the former two, and the 486 is still exhibiting the same
> behavior as before (i.e. not working, but working better than before
> the patch).

Any luck with the 486 system?  (Not that it would be a blocker for
merging the patch, if it didn't work before anyway.)