On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:54:12AM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jan 2017, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Get rid of the union and just keep ktime_t as simple typedef of type s64. > > > > All good stuff. One question that remains is why keep the type while > > removing the cycles_t type? > > That would have been a massive surgery which I was not able to pull off on > top of the other changes. And the reason ktime needs be s64 is because 0 is at boot, and we need to represent time before boot, right? Might want to stick that in a comment somewhere near that typedef, so I don't keep asking this ;-)
