linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies

To: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au
Subject: Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies
From: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:57:50 +0900 (JST)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <44059915.3010800@yahoo.com.au>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20060301.144442.118975101.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20060301.210541.30439818.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <44059915.3010800@yahoo.com.au>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
>>>>> On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:52:37 +1100, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 
>>>>> said:

>> void do_timer(struct pt_regs *regs)
>> {
>> -    jiffies_64++;
>> -    update_times();
>> +    update_times(++jiffies_64);
>>      softlockup_tick(regs);
>> }

nick> jiffies_64 is not volatile so you should not have to obfuscate
nick> the code like this.

Well, do you mean it should be like this ?

        jiffies_64++;
        update_times(jiffies_64);

Thanks for your comments.
---
Atsushi Nemoto

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>