Re: [RFC/PATCH] posix-timers: make them configurable

[Josh Triplett]

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:48:57AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> > Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic
> > isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix
> > clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a
> > similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the
> > subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime()
> > functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used
> > functionality.
> 
> I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of
> removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep().  I can't imagine ever
> building a user space without those.  In fact, thinking about IoT,
> having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I
> would remove when downsizing.

1) If you already have another function providing time and don't need two.
2) If you run an entirely event-driven loop and don't sleep.