Re: [PATCH 3/3] timekeeping: add missing _ns functions for coarse accessors

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:12 PM Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/timekeeping.rst b/Documentation/core-api/timekeeping.rst
> index ad32085174f8..d5e88f0e06a4 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/timekeeping.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/timekeeping.rst
> @@ -99,16 +99,20 @@ Coarse and fast access
>
>  Some additional variants exist for more specialized cases:
>
> -.. c:function:: ktime_t ktime_get_coarse_boottime( void )
> +.. c:function:: ktime_t ktime_get_coarse( void )
> +               ktime_t ktime_get_coarse_boottime( void )
>                 ktime_t ktime_get_coarse_real( void )
>                 ktime_t ktime_get_coarse_clocktai( void )
> -               ktime_t ktime_get_coarse_raw( void )
> +
> +.. c:function:: u64 ktime_get_coarse_ns( void )
> +               u64 ktime_get_boot_coarse_ns( void )
> +               u64 ktime_get_real_coarse_ns( void )
> +               u64 ktime_get_tai_coarse_ns( void )

I would prefer the 'coarse' on the other side, i.e.
ktime_get_coarse_real_ns instead of ktime_get_real_coarse_ns,
as this is what we already have with ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64.

I originally went with that order to avoid the function sounding
"real coarse", although I have to admit that it was before Thomas
fixed it in e3ff9c3678b4 ("timekeeping: Repair ktime_get_coarse*()
granularity"). ;-)

I would also prefer _boottime over _boot. Unfortunately we
are already inconsistent and have roughly the same number
of callers for ktime_get_boot_ns() and ktime_get_boottime().

      Arnd