Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday core subsystem (v. A3)
From: john stultz
Date: Mon Mar 14 2005 - 19:52:18 EST
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:28 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, john stultz wrote:
> > Huh. So if I understand you properly, all timesources should have valid
> > read_fnct pointers that return the cycle value, however we'll still
> > preserve the type and mmio_ptr so fsyscall/vsyscall bits can use them
> > externally?
> > Hmm. I'm a little cautious, as I really want to make the vsyscall
> > gettimeofday and regular do_gettimeofday be a similar as possible to
> > avoid some of the bugs we've seen between different gettimeofday
> > implementations. However I'm not completely against the idea.
> > Christoph: Do you have any thoughts on this?
> Sorry to be late to the party. It would be a weird implementation to have
> two ways to obtain time for each timesource. Also would be even more a
> headache to maintain than the existing fastcall vs. fullcall.
That's my feeling as well, unless a more convincing argument comes up.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/