On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:30:11PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 02:13:15PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 09:23:54PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > > > @@ -217,7 +217,11 @@ int cpuidle_enter_state(struct cpuidle_device *dev, > > > struct cpuidle_driver *drv, > > > if (!cpuidle_state_is_coupled(drv, entered_state)) > > > local_irq_enable(); > > > > > > - diff = ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(time_end, time_start)); > > > + /* > > > + * local_clock() returns the time in nanosecond, let's shift > > > + * by 10 (divide by 1024) to have microsecond based time. > > > + */ > > > + diff = (time_end - time_start) >> 10; > > > > Changelog fails to explain the ramifications of this change... > > Sorry, I don't get the point of your comment. Do you mean I should elaborate > the comment above in the changelog?
Yeah, why is /1024 good enough?
