25 Jun
2013
25 Jun
'13
11:26 a.m.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 06:46:48PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote:
On 24.06.2013 18:05, Mark Brown wrote:
Applied al, thanks. Though specifying this in nanoseconds does seem absurdly high resolution...
Meh, I was confused, sorry. That first patch need to be revered (or dropped), the documentation was correct as it stood. The time values are given in fractions of milliseconds, not microseconds. My bad.
Dropped.