Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:18:28 +0200 | From | Martin Schwidefsky <> | Subject | Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 |
| |
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:51 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> 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.
Indeed. No progress on the sparse check so far I'm afraid.
-- blue skies, Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
| |