Re: [PATCH] Introduce jiffies_32 and related compare functions

[Eric Dumazet]

David Miller a écrit :
> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 04:47:14 +0100
>
> > I doubt being able to extend the expiration of a dst above 2^32
> > ticks (49 days if HZ=1000, 198 days if HZ=250) is worth the ram
> > wastage.
>
> And this doesn't apply for all jiffies uses because? :-)
>
> That's the point I'm trying to make and get a discussion on.

Ah ok :)

Maybe my intentions were not clear :

I am not suggesting replacing all jiffies to jiffies_32. Just *selected* ones :)

BTW, the real limit is 2^31 ticks, so its 24 days.

We definitly *like* being able to use bigger timeouts on 64bits platforms.

Not that they are mandatory since the same application should run fine on 
32bits kernel. But as the standard type for 'tick timestamps' is 'unsigned 
long', a change would be invasive.

Maybe some applications are now relying on being able to 
sleep()/select()/poll() for periods > 30 days and only run on 64 bits kernels.

Eric
-
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/