[Top] [All Lists]

Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies
From: Nick Piggin <>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:00:16 +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=uk+6687T9kQY+egMbUwOkw9k9w97Jg5Zop6QAOpQ5AgN3eKbh2LK9xiHi+Z7xZpxkg+wuVu+2Ojsec6a9mxtidSXX52wqJ/MdzMvtmdG2NUtcJNf2FrpkPM7CpOQT61rXFR7ZNYaCQPMt+t3CCVRGQoohTY4mTmpMuBIsYs2BLQ= ;
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:
On Wed, 01 Mar 2006 23:52:37 +1100, Nick Piggin <> said:

void do_timer(struct pt_regs *regs)
-       jiffies_64++;
-       update_times();
+       update_times(++jiffies_64);

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 ?


Yeah. It makes your patch a line smaller too!

Thanks for your comments.

Oh it was nothing really ;)

SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>