* Linus Torvalds <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Linus, would you like me to revert d9a3c9823a2e and re-send the pull
> > request?
>
> I took the pull request, but I'd like to see the non-64-bit divide
> version before the merge window ends. [...]
Yeah, wanted to apply it later today or tomorrow, and push it to you this
week - well before the end of the merge window.
> [...] And with no more div_rem users I think we should at least
> double-check that the new div64_u64() (that uses the new div64_u64_rem)
> isn't noticeably slower than the old one. If it is, we should revert
> that new (and then unused) div64 code too.
Correct, this is what Stanislaw's series from earlier today does:
[PATCH -tip 1/4] sched: Avoid cputime scaling overflow
[PATCH -tip 2/4] sched: Do not account bogus utime
[PATCH -tip 3/4] sched: Avoid prev->stime underflow
[PATCH -tip 4/4] Revert "math64: New div64_u64_rem helper"
so it gets rid of the div64_u64_rem() bits as well.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
