[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292841231.2708.136.camel@laptop>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:33:51 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, dipankar@...ibm.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca,
josh@...htriplett.org, niv@...ibm.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
rostedt@...dmis.org, Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu, dhowells@...hat.com,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, darren@...art.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC tip/core/rcu 13/20] rcu: increase
synchronize_sched_expedited() batching
On Sun, 2010-12-19 at 08:35 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > (int)((unsigned)(a) - (unsigned)(b)) < 0
>
> Unfortunately, no. :-(
>
> The (int) converts from unsigned to signed, and if the upper bit of
> the unsigned difference is non-zero, then the paragraph I quoted above
> applies, and the standard allows the compiler to do whatever it wants.
>
As noted in the previous reply, that would render quite a lot of our
time-keeping code broken. I think its safe to assume this works.
Look at time_after() for example:
#define time_after(a,b) \
(typecheck(unsigned long, a) && \
typecheck(unsigned long, b) && \
((long)(b) - (long)(a) < 0))
--
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