Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tip tree with the cputime tree

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 15:08:43 +0100
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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?

Correct.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/