Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:03:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:03:14 -0500 Received: from [194.25.47.66] ([194.25.47.66]:36877 "HELO brenner.novaville.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 17:03:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 23:03:04 +0100 (CET) From: Oliver Hillmann To: Alan Cox cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: jiffies rollover, uptime etc. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: 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 On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote: > > counter, and I'm currently digging into that area... Stuff like a pc > > speaker driver going wild bothers me a bit more... > > Fix the speaker driver I guess is the answer. It shouldnt have done that. Well, yeah.. So if its just the speaker driver I might sleep better now :) > > Could anybody perhaps tell me why he/she doesn't consider this a > > problem? And is there a fundamental problem with solving this in > > general? (I do see a problem with defining jiffies long long on x86, > > because it might break a lot of things and probably wouldnt perform > > as often as jiffies is touched... And you might sense I haven't > > been into kernel hacking much...) > > Counting in long long is expensive and the drivers are meant to all use > roll over safe compares Yes, that's what I thought of, long long being too expensive. And since jiffies doesn't seem to have a problem with rolling over, I might try to hack the uptime-releated code a bit for myself... If nobody isn't going like "DONT! THAT'S A VERY BAD IDEA FOR THIS AND THIS REASON!" :) Thanks Oliver - 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/