Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2

[Daniel Walker]

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:04 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:49:33 -0700
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 12:53 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > 
> > > > I'm not sure allowing that type of override a good idea tho .. I don't
> > > > think it's considered a usable clock when the rating goes to zero.
> > > 
> > > Override as the root user -> your foot, no? The whole override stuff is
> > > there for the case that the clocksource selection picked a broken clock
> > > and you want to force the system into a semi-working state. Ideally the
> > > whole override would go away, but that is probably wishful thinking..
> > 
> > I would agree if the system doesn't crash as a result, if it just starts
> > to operate funny then that's maybe acceptable. If you keep the change
> > rating function, you could potentially remove the unregister path..
> 
> Why shouldn't it be possible to have a clocksource as a module? I think
> that the unregister path should stay. To really make it work we'd need
> a function to force the system out of the one-shot mode though.

Because I don't think there is a sane reason to allow it. It should be
more like if someone has a need for it, then let them add back the
unregister path and explain why they need it.

Daniel

--
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/