Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

[Martin Schwidefsky]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:12:51 +0200
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 09:55 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > 
> > The reason for the cputime_xxx primitives has been my fear that people
> > ignore the cputime_t type and just use unsigned long (as they always
> > have). That would break s390 which needs a u64 for its cputime value.
> > Dunno if we still need it, seems like we got used to using cputime_t. 
> 
> Right, and like mentioned last time this came up, we could possibly make
> use of sparse to ensure things don't go fail on 32bit s390.

Indeed. No progress on the sparse check so far I'm afraid. 


-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.

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