David Mosberger wrote:
>>>>>>On Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:39:16 -0800, george anzinger <george@mvista.com> said:
> 
> 
>   George> Ok, I will fix all the above and shoot you a patch.  I
>   George> assume you can test it on a 64-bit platform.  Right?
> 
The patch to fix idr is attached.  Cleans up the int/long confusion 
and also rearranges a couple of structures to honor the sizes involved.

> Sure, except I don't have a test-program. ;-)
> 
That is why you should visit the High-res-timers web site (see URL 
below) and get the "support" patch.  It installs in you kernel tree at 
.../Documentation/high-res-timers/ and has test programs as well as 
man pages, readme files etc.

By the way, I am seeing some reports from the clock_nanosleep test 
about sleeping too long or too short.  The too long appears to be just 
not being able to preempt what ever else is running.  The too short 
(on the x86) is, I believe, due to the fact that more that 1/HZ is 
clocked on the wall clock each jiffie.

Try this:

time sleep 60

On the x86 it reports less than 60, NOT good.

-- 
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