On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Ben Greear wrote:
> I wonder, is it more expensive to write all drivers to handle the
> wraps than to take the long long increment hit? The increment is
> once every 10 miliseconds, right? That is not too often, all things
> considered...
This is just a matter of getting the signed/unsigned declarations right in
comparisons. (time_before and time_after macros were introduced to aid
here, hint!)
No overhead is involved here.
Actually, quite a few bug fixes in this area went into 2.4.18pre, with
some more to come in 2.4.19pre.
>
> Maybe the non-atomicity of the long long increment is the problem?
Yes.
> Does this problem still exist on 64-bit machines?
>
No.
> THanks,
> Ben
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:16 EST