lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: linux-next: tip tree build warnings
On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:13:26 +0200
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:38:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > cputime_t is variously "u64", "unsigned long long" and "unsigned
> > > long" on different architectures.
> >
> > Should be unsigned long i think. Most architectures use it as
> > unsigned long via include/asm-generic/cputime.h, except these three:
> >
> > arch/ia64/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef u64 cputime_t;
> > arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef u64 cputime_t;
> > arch/s390/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef unsigned long long cputime_t;
> >
> > Or we could eliminate the type altogether as well and standardize on
> > u64. Thomas?
>
> s390 uses 64 bit cputime_t because we want the high resolution also in
> 32 bit kernels. So standardizing on u64 would be the preferred solution
> for us.

The cputime_t type serves/served two purposes: 1) make it clear that
this is NOT a jiffie value, it is an architecture defined type with
architecture dependent semantic, 2) by redefining cputime_t to a
structure with a single embedded unsigned long I have been able to
identify all places in the kernel that do not use the proper cputime
functions. I'm not sure if we need 2) anymore.

--
blue skies,
Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-09-07 11:03    [W:0.034 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site