Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)

* Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]> wrote:

>    What was the destiny of that patch? I haven't seen it accepted, 
> haven't seen any comments... while this is not a mere warning fix. 
> What am I expected to do to get it accepted -- recast it against 
> 2.6.19-rt1?

i'd suggest to redo it - but please keep it simple and clean. Those 
dozens of casts to u64 are quite ugly. Why is cycles_t 32-bits on some 
of the arches to begin with?

	Ingo
-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
    • From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
    • From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
    • From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] i386/kernel/smp.c: don't use set_irq_regs()
• Next by Date: Re: [GFS2] Tidy up bmap & fix boundary bug [48/70]
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
• 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]