On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 14:13:26 +0200 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:38:44AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > cputime_t is variously "u64", "unsigned long long" and "unsigned > > > long" on different architectures. > > > > Should be unsigned long i think. Most architectures use it as > > unsigned long via include/asm-generic/cputime.h, except these three: > > > > arch/ia64/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef u64 cputime_t; > > arch/powerpc/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef u64 cputime_t; > > arch/s390/include/asm/cputime.h:typedef unsigned long long cputime_t; > > > > Or we could eliminate the type altogether as well and standardize on > > u64. Thomas? > > s390 uses 64 bit cputime_t because we want the high resolution also in > 32 bit kernels. So standardizing on u64 would be the preferred solution > for us. The cputime_t type serves/served two purposes: 1) make it clear that this is NOT a jiffie value, it is an architecture defined type with architecture dependent semantic, 2) by redefining cputime_t to a structure with a single embedded unsigned long I have been able to identify all places in the kernel that do not use the proper cputime functions. I'm not sure if we need 2) anymore. -- blue skies, Martin. "Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
