On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 00:35 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 00:07:58 -0700
>
> > I wonder whether designing-in a millisecond granularity is the right thing
> > to do. If in a few years the kernel is running tickless with high-res clock
> > interrupt sources, that might look a bit lumpy.
> >
> > Switching it to a __u64 nanosecond counter would be basically free on
> > 64-bit machines, and not very expensive on 32-bit, no?
>
> If it ends up in a structure we'll need to use the "aligned_u64" type
> in order to avoid problems with 32-bit x86 binaries running on 64-bit
> kernels.
Perhaps
struct timespec64
{
uint64_t tv_sec __attribute__((aligned(8)));
uint32_t tv_nsec;
}
with a snide remark about gcc in the comments?
--
Nicholas Miell <[email protected]>
-
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/
[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]
