David Howells writes:
> Ummm... On powerpc, I believe rotate-left would be a division as it does the
> bit-numbering and the bit direction the opposite way to more familiar CPUs
> such as x86.
No. :)
"Left" and "right" are relative to the way those of us humans in the
Western European cultural
Hello Scott,
On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:29:12PM +0300, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
>> > x * y / z is parsed as (x * y) / z, not x * (y / z).
>>
>> Here we believe in preprocessor: since all PAGE_SIZE, 8, and
>
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:29:12PM +0300, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
> > x * y / z is parsed as (x * y) / z, not x * (y / z).
>
> Here we believe in preprocessor: since all PAGE_SIZE, 8, and
> THREAD_SIZE are the constants we expect it will calculate this.
Hello David,
On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
> Yuri Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here we believe in preprocessor: since all PAGE_SIZE, 8, and
>> THREAD_SIZE are the constants we expect it will calculate this.
> The preprocessor shouldn't be calculating this. I believe
On Wed, 10 Dec 2008, David Howells wrote:
> Yuri Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In any case, adding braces as follows probably would be better:
> >
> > + max_threads = mempages * (PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE));
>
> I think you mean brackets, not braces '{}'.
>
> > Right ?
>
> De
David Howells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ummm... On powerpc, I believe rotate-left would be a division as it does the
> bit-numbering and the bit direction the opposite way to more familiar CPUs
> such as x86.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Sometimes powerpc makes my head hurt:-)
David
Yuri Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here we believe in preprocessor: since all PAGE_SIZE, 8, and
> THREAD_SIZE are the constants we expect it will calculate this.
The preprocessor shouldn't be calculating this. I believe it will _only_
calculate expressions for #if. In the situation yo
Hello Al,
On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:01:13PM +0300, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
>> >> + max_threads = mempages * PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE);
>> >
>> >> +#endif
>>
>> > Can't this overflow, e.g. on 32-bit m
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 01:01:13PM +0300, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
> >> + max_threads = mempages * PAGE_SIZE / (8 * THREAD_SIZE);
> >
> >> +#endif
>
> > Can't this overflow, e.g. on 32-bit machines with HIGHMEM?
>
> The multiplier here is not PAGE_SIZE
Hello Geert,
On Wednesday, December 10, 2008 you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
>> The following patch fixes divide-by-zero error for the
>> cases of really big PAGE_SIZEs (e.g. 256KB on ppc44x).
>> Support for such big page sizes on 44x is not present in the
>> current kernel
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
> The following patch fixes divide-by-zero error for the
> cases of really big PAGE_SIZEs (e.g. 256KB on ppc44x).
> Support for such big page sizes on 44x is not present in the
> current kernel yet, but coming soon.
>
> Also this patch fixes the comment for
The following patch fixes divide-by-zero error for the
cases of really big PAGE_SIZEs (e.g. 256KB on ppc44x).
Support for such big page sizes on 44x is not present in the
current kernel yet, but coming soon.
Also this patch fixes the comment for the max_threads
settings, as this didn't match the
12 matches
Mail list logo
