![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 16:24 +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > On Saturday 04 March 2006 16:20, Mike Galbraith wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 13:33 +1100, Peter Williams wrote: > > > > include/linux/sched.h | 3 - > > > > kernel/sched.c | 136 > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 2 files changed, 82 > > > > insertions(+), 57 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > --- linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm2/include/linux/sched.h.org 2006-03-01 > > > > 15:06:22.000000000 +0100 +++ > > > > linux-2.6.16-rc5-mm2/include/linux/sched.h 2006-03-02 > > > > 08:33:12.000000000 +0100 @@ -720,7 +720,8 @@ > > > > > > > > unsigned long policy; > > > > cpumask_t cpus_allowed; > > > > - unsigned int time_slice, first_time_slice; > > > > + int time_slice; > > > > > > Can you guarantee that int is big enough to hold a time slice in > > > nanoseconds on all systems? I think that you'll need more than 16 bits. > > > > Nope, that's a big fat bug. > > Most ints are 32bit anyway, but even a 32 bit unsigned int overflows with > nanoseconds at 4.2 seconds. A signed one at about half that. Our timeslices > are never that large, but then int isn't always 32bit either. Yup. I just didn't realize that there were 16 bit integers out there. -Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-04 05:30 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||