lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
Hello.

Ingo Molnar wrote:

>>> /* check for buggy clocks, handling wrap for 32-bit clocks */
>>>- if (TYPE_EQUAL(cycles_t, unsigned long)) {
>>>+ if (TYPE_EQUAL(cycle_t, unsigned long)) {
>>> if (time_after((unsigned long)T1, (unsigned long)T2))
>>> printk("bug: %08lx < %08lx!\n",
>>> (unsigned long)T2, (unsigned long)T1);

>> This earlier fix by Kevin woulnd't have sense anymore with cycle_t...

> yeah, indeed - i've zapped this one too.

Moreover, it was somewhat incorrect from the very start since 'unsigned
long' is 64-bit on 64-bit machines, and cycles_t is 'unsigned long' on both
PPC32 and PPC64, so else branch would've *never* be executed...

> basically, what i'd like is the 32-bit clocks/cycles be handled
> intelligently, and not adding to the cruft that already is in
> kernel/latency_tracing.c.

Yeah, I've looked at 2.6.19-rt2 and saw the new approach. But what's left
to fix there, only the case of using PPC32 raw cycles? I guess you only need
to cast a result of get_cycles() to cycle_t... wait, it'll be explicitly cast
in the return stmt, won't it?

> Ingo

WBR, Sergei
-
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: 2006-12-04 18:11    [W:0.070 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site