WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH1/6] cpuidle: fix wrapped ticks calculation for pm

To: "Gang Wei" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH1/6] cpuidle: fix wrapped ticks calculation for pm timer
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 09:18:55 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:19:34 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE710F70FB8656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE710F70FB8656@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 17.06.10 at 09:37, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> cpuidle: fix wrapped ticks calculation for pm timer.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Gang <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
> 
> diff -r 26c2922da53c xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c    Thu May 27 09:39:47 2010 +0100
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c    Sun Jun 13 06:44:32 2010 +0800
> @@ -137,9 +137,9 @@ static inline u32 ticks_elapsed(u32 t1, 
>      if ( t2 >= t1 )
>          return (t2 - t1);
>      else if ( !(acpi_gbl_FADT.flags & ACPI_FADT_32BIT_TIMER) )
> -        return (((0x00FFFFFF - t1) + t2) & 0x00FFFFFF);
> +        return (((0x00FFFFFF - t1) + t2 + 1) & 0x00FFFFFF);
>      else
> -        return ((0xFFFFFFFF - t1) + t2);
> +        return ((0xFFFFFFFF - t1) + t2 +1);

Why can't this then also just be (t2 - t1)?

>  }
>  
>  static void acpi_safe_halt(void)

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>