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-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
