Re: do we still need the jiffies wraparound functions ?

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, jeff shia wrote:

> Under the kernel 2.6.x,the jiffies is defined as u64.We cannot count
> on it to overflow.

Actually, no. jiffies is still defined as unsigned long, which reduces 
overhead where 64 bit jiffies are not needed. Only jiffies_64 is an u64.

> Do we still need the functions to solve this problem?

Yes.

Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• References:
  • do we still need the jiffies wraparound functions ?
    • From: jeff shia <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: do we still need the jiffies wraparound functions ?
• Next by Date: Re: USB rejecting sleep
• Previous by thread: Re: do we still need the jiffies wraparound functions ?
• Next by thread: [patch] elevator: elv_try_merge() cleanup
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]