On Wed, 2011-09-28 at 12:35 -0300, Glauber Costa wrote: > > So let me get this straight: The proposal here is really to get rid of > all cputime_t , not only cputime64_t ?
For now cputime64_t would be sufficient, just wanted to extend the argument with Martin to see if we really need the cputime*() trickery at all.