[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49EE89EF.1000707@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:07:27 -0500
From: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@...com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep for
more than 2.15 seconds
john stultz wrote:
> One other minor comment nit, if we're really meaning that max_delta_ns
> is a 64bit value, should we not just be using s64 and be explicit
> instead of converting longs to long longs?
Thanks for the feedback. I am in two minds about this. I agree and I
would prefer to use s64/u64 as this is explicit with regard to the size
of the data type. However, for right or wrong I ended up with long long
because...
a). The function clockevent_delta2ns() uses LONG_MAX (or in my
suggestion LLONG_MAX) as the upper limit. LONG_MAX and LLONG_MAX are
defined as a long and long long respectively.
#define LONG_MAX ((long)(~0UL>>1))
#define LLONG_MAX ((long long)(~0ULL>>1))
b). There are a couple prints in the kernel for display max_delta_ns and
min_delta_ns. The prints use %lu and %llu to indicate long and long long
types respectively.
So to avoid using casts or possibly a type mismatch for some
architecture that I may have overlooked I kept it as long long. So this
assumes that long long will be a 64-bit type which I don't like.
However, this would not cause any compilation issues even if long long
turned out to be 32-bits or 128-bits (if this is even possible). We
could use u64 and cast where necessary to be safe/correct if this is
preferred.
Cheers
Jon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists