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

[Jason A. Donenfeld]

On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:58 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I care less about these since ktime_get_real_fast_ns() already
> exists. My preference would be leaving alons the _fast_ns()
> functions for now, but making everything else consistent instead.
>
> Thomas created the _fast_ns() accessors with a specific application
> in mind, and I suppose we don't really want them to be used much
> beyond that. I wonder if we should try to come up with a better
> name instead of "fast" that makes the purpose clearer and does
> not suggest that it's faster to read than the "coarse" version.

Oh shoot, I just submitted v3 having not seen this. Does v3's 4/4 look
fine, or shall I undo the _fast switcheroo and resubmit?

Jason