Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>>George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>:
>> o POSIX clocks & timers
>
>
> Care to explain what FOLD_NANO_SLEEP_INTO_CLOCK_NANO_SLEEP
> is supposed to do? It's always defined in signal.h, so we can
> aswell get rid of it..
It is there in case some one might want nanosleep to NOT be folded
into clock_nanosleep. For a while this was a moving target and I got
a bit paranoid :) I see no real reason to keep it...
>
> And what's this:
>
> #ifndef div_long_long_rem
> +#include <asm/div64.h>
> +
> +#define div_long_long_rem(dividend,divisor,remainder) ({ \
> + u64 result = dividend; \
> + *remainder = do_div(result,divisor); \
> + result; })
> +
> +#endif /* ifndef div_long_long_rem */
>
> Any reason you can't just use do_div directly like everyone else? :)
Actually I have coded a better function as part of the expanded
high-res-timers which does a 64-bit/32-bit div in a much cleaner way.
Again, it is part of the full high-res-timers patch. I have been
thinking of submitting the complete set of these math routines outside
of the high-res patch. They are designed to make scaled math easy. I
have both a generic and a i386 header file, but they still need a
bit of testing.
The issue is getting around the C limitation of not being able to use
the div and mpy instructions that take 64-bits/32-bits and return 2
32-bit results and the mpy which takes 2 32-bit operands and returns a
64-bit result.
For scaled operations, they also roll a shift into the mix in an
efficient way (i.e. a small inline asm function).
-- George Anzinger george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 28 2003 - 22:00:33 EST