lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-17 11:21    [W:0.102 / U:0.468 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site