On Sunday 06 April 2008 02:29:14 am Dhaval Giani wrote:
quoted text
> On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 02:01:52AM +0530, Balaji Rao wrote:
> > On Sunday 06 April 2008 01:10:41 am Dhaval Giani wrote:
> > > > +};
> > > > +
> > > > +struct cpu_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> > > > +	s64 count[CPU_CGROUP_STAT_NSTATS];
> > > 
> > > u64? time does not go negative :)
> > Right. But these stats are not only going to measure time. We need the 
same 
quoted text
> > variables for measuring other stats as well. I'm not sure if we would 
> > encounter scheduler stats that would count negative.
> > 
> > Balbir, what do you say ?
> 
> I would prefer to keep the stats logically separate. So something like
> struct cpu_cgroup_stat_cpu {
> 	u64 time[];
> 	s64 some_other_stat;
> }
> and so on. (I am not sure, is there some advantage gained by using
> structs?) Makes the code more maintainable imho.
> 
This would break the generic nature of __cpu_cgroup_stat_add. Its not a nice 
thing in my opinion.

-- 
regards,
Balaji Rao
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, India
--
unsubscribe notice
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/