[Top] [All Lists]

Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies
From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:52:37 +1100
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=Vck0wRFnynPksIlhpHe0MFKs/xq7qDi0cE9Km5oWL70gXP7FHZBc4mK9G0N34I3olj9P2qljwgDS3GTqayRbt8zwE7vLySqPA6uBAyE7PXiX3+rZZw7EYwei+GA+zItMkVp+iOmYE2Q4blfipvCQwsWlIoow0ADLdkM/wcOEHtg= ;
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:

@@ -924,8 +924,7 @@ static inline void update_times(void)
void do_timer(struct pt_regs *regs)
-       jiffies_64++;
-       update_times();
+       update_times(++jiffies_64);

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

Send instant messages to your online friends
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>