Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 | From | Peter Zijlstra <> | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:51 +0200 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 09:55 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > The reason for the cputime_xxx primitives has been my fear that people > ignore the cputime_t type and just use unsigned long (as they always > have). That would break s390 which needs a u64 for its cputime value. > Dunno if we still need it, seems like we got used to using cputime_t.
Right, and like mentioned last time this came up, we could possibly make use of sparse to ensure things don't go fail on 32bit s390.
| |