* Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote: > While I'm not against this patch, but on m68k I prefer a 32bit cycle > type (however it's called), so it doesn't solve the original problem. i havent changed the cycles_t type - it's still 32-bit. I agree with you that we dont want to bloat 32-bit arch-level code by artificially forcing everyone to a 64-bit cycles_t. 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/
- 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]>
- Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3)
- Prev by Date: Re: Why SCSI module needed for PCI-IDE ATA only disks ?
- Next by Date: Re: Incorrect order of last two arguments of ptrace for requests PPC_PTRACE_GETREGS, SETREGS, GETFPREGS, SETFPREGS
- 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):
 |