[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1318842771.6594.30.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:51 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 09:55 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> The reason for the cputime_xxx primitives has been my fear that people
> ignore the cputime_t type and just use unsigned long (as they always
> have). That would break s390 which needs a u64 for its cputime value.
> Dunno if we still need it, seems like we got used to using cputime_t.
Right, and like mentioned last time this came up, we could possibly make
use of sparse to ensure things don't go fail on 32bit s390.
--
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