lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Patch] Re: Nasty suprise with uptime
On Thu, Nov 01, 2001 at 01:03:32PM -0500, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> does the jumps on condition and tests for zero, even after the
> flags have been set by the previous operation, I tested what
> the result was. It turns out that it's only a couple of clock
> cycles, not the 6 extra clocks that the hand calculation shows.

*sigh* You're not testing any of the effects on available execution
resources within the processor.

> So, if you leave jiffies alone, but bump another variable when it
> wraps, you get to eat your cake and keep it too.

As Linus pointed out, using casting tricks with a long long will just
work for this case. Sounds good to me.

-ben
-
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: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.108 / U:13.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site