Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932197AbVL0ECh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:02:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932207AbVL0ECh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:02:37 -0500 Received: from [139.30.44.16] ([139.30.44.16]:22356 "EHLO gockel.physik3.uni-rostock.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932197AbVL0ECh (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:02:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:02:32 +0100 (CET) From: Tim Schmielau To: jeff shia cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: do we still need the jiffies wraparound functions ? In-Reply-To: <7cd5d4b40512261932v12149210u52cf97c4bc203871@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <7cd5d4b40512261932v12149210u52cf97c4bc203871@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 589 Lines: 18 On Tue, 27 Dec 2005, jeff shia wrote: > Under the kernel 2.6.x,the jiffies is defined as u64.We cannot count > on it to overflow. Actually, no. jiffies is still defined as unsigned long, which reduces overhead where 64 bit jiffies are not needed. Only jiffies_64 is an u64. > Do we still need the functions to solve this problem? Yes. 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/