lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [resend PATCH for 3.2] procfs: do not confuse jiffies with cputime64_t
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:59:19 -0800
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:03:34 +0100
> Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > Hmm, it seems that this bugfix (for 3.2) stalled. I guess that it is
> > primarily because it is multiarch fix.
> > I am sorry to bother you Andrew but could we push this through you,
> > please?
> >
> > The full patch for reference:
> > ---
> > >From 1fca39b21f3b344c90c30d98db6dcdcdc6815797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
> > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:07:53 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] procfs: do not confuse jiffies with cputime64_t
> >
> > get_{idle,iowait}_time are supposed to return cputime64_t values, not
> > jiffies. Add usecs_to_cputime64 for this.
>
> This makes a huge mess when mixed with Martin's "cputime: add sparse
> checking and cleanup" in linux-next. I think I got it fixed up but it
> needs careful checking - I don't _think_ I needed to add more __force
> thingies. The version against today's linux-next is below.

As long as cputime_t and cputime64_t have the same base type my version of
sparse does not warn if you mix the two types.

> (I did party tricks with this so I could carry the against-mainline and
> against-next versions in the same tree).
>
>
> Also, in include/asm-generic/cputime.h we have:
>
> #define usecs_to_cputime64(__msecs) nsecs_to_jiffies64((__msecs) * 1000)
>
> But it would be neater to have used nsecs_to_cputime64(), surely.

It would be cleaner to do an explicit cast to cputime64_t for all of
the usecs_to_cputime64() definitions.

--
blue skies,
Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-22 10:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans