In article 20111025113549.edb0a17...@cvs.netbsd.org,
Jukka Ruohonen source-changes-d@NetBSD.org wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Module Name: src
Committed By: jruoho
Date: Tue Oct 25 11:35:49 UTC 2011
Modified Files:
src/sys/kern: subr_cpufreq.c
src/sys/sys: cpufreq.h
Log Message:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:36:50PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
We really want to be switching most things in the kernel to timespec from
timeval not the other way around?
A case came up where the transition latencies are very high, and I'd like
to still use uint64_t. The precision is hardly
In article 20111025150023.GA13544@marx.bitnet,
Jukka Ruohonen jruoho...@iki.fi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 02:36:50PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
We really want to be switching most things in the kernel to timespec from
timeval not the other way around?
A case came up where the transition
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:04:35PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In this case a simple change from:
s += ntb.tv_nsec;
to:
s += ntb.tv_nsec / 1000;
would have been sufficient since the division is outside the critical
sampling section.
Heh, obviously.
Could be, but in the
In article 20111025172130.GA1184@marx.bitnet,
Jukka Ruohonen jruoho...@iki.fi wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 04:04:35PM +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In this case a simple change from:
s += ntb.tv_nsec;
to:
s += ntb.tv_nsec / 1000;
would have been sufficient since the division is
