Re: [PATCH RFC V2 4/6] time: introduce leap second functionalinterface

[Richard Cochran]

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:24:57PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 05/21/2012 12:18 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
> Hrm.  I prefer to keep things fairly flat (even having time.h and
> timex.h bugs me somewhat).  But having such a separation could be
> useful, but maybe at a slightly more coarse level. Something like
> timekeeping-internal.h and time.h, splitting all the general
> accessors away from the non-general.

Yes, time.h is full of stuff not really for public use. When compiling
on an atom netbook as I do, it gets really noticeable and annoying
when you tweak some private prototype, and then the whole darn kernel
rebuilds.

> The locking order is pretty straight forward: timekeeper.lock ->
> ntp_lock.   This only gets messy when you require timekeeping data
> from the ntp context, but usually we provide the required data via
> the caller.  But better documentation is always welcome.

The icky part is the fact that ntp would need access to timekeeper
state while holding ntp_lock.

Richard
--
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/