[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1324303723.24621.1.camel@twins>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:08:43 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree
On Mon, 2011-12-19 at 13:31 +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array
> to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined
> by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
> this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse
> checking when reading from cpustat.
So as Glauber said the reason was that we wanted to use simply
operators, and IIRC he wanted to add a few fields that had to be u64.
I'm not sure what the current plans are wrt adding more fields, but with
your work cputime_t should again be a simple type and thus regular math
operators should work again, right?
Glauber, do you still need to add fields?
--
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