On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > As per this patch perhaps? :
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> this is still not enough (there was one more comparison to cover). Also,
> it's a bit cleaner to just cast the le
* Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As per this patch perhaps? :
>
> Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
this is still not enough (there was one more comparison to cover). Also,
it's a bit cleaner to just cast the left side to signed than cast every
member separately.
On Fri, 2005-04-15 at 12:59 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > - if (unlikely((long long)now - prev->timestamp < 0))
> > + if (unlikely(((long long)now - (long long)prev->timestamp)
> > < 0))
>
> You can write this as
>
> (long l
Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> - if (unlikely((long long)now - prev->timestamp < 0))
> + if (unlikely(((long long)now - (long long)prev->timestamp) <
> 0))
You can write this as
(long long)(now - prev->timestamp)
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.o
On Fri, Apr 15, 2005 at 10:23:11AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
>
> >
> >As per this patch perhaps? :
> >
>
> Thanks. I'll make sure it gets to the right place if nobody picks it up.
Perhaps this ought to be wrapped up in sched_clock_before() or some
such.
--
Mathematics is
Jesper Juhl wrote:
As per this patch perhaps? :
Thanks. I'll make sure it gets to the right place if nobody picks it up.
Signed-off-by: Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3-orig/kernel/sched.c 2005-04-11 21:20:56.0 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.12-rc2-mm3/kernel/sched.c 2005-04-
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are two expressions in kernel/sched.c that are always false since
> > > > they
> > > > test for <0 but the result of the expression is un
Jesper Juhl wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
Jesper Juhl wrote:
There are two expressions in kernel/sched.c that are always false since they
test for <0 but the result of the expression is unsigned so they will never
be less than zero. This patch implement the logic that I believe is
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Jesper Juhl wrote:
> > There are two expressions in kernel/sched.c that are always false since they
> > test for <0 but the result of the expression is unsigned so they will never
> > be less than zero. This patch implement the logic that I believe is inte
Jesper Juhl wrote:
There are two expressions in kernel/sched.c that are always false since
they test for <0 but the result of the expression is unsigned so they will
never be less than zero. This patch implement the logic that I believe is
intended without the signedness issue and without the na
There are two expressions in kernel/sched.c that are always false since
they test for <0 but the result of the expression is unsigned so they will
never be less than zero. This patch implement the logic that I believe is
intended without the signedness issue and without the nasty casts.
patch i
11 matches
Mail list logo