lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jul]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] new timeofday core subsystem
On 16.07.2005 [02:32:14 -0600], Frank Sorenson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> > +extern nsec_t do_monotonic_clock(void);
> This looks okay ...
>
> > +/**
> > + * do_monotonic_clock - Returns monotonically increasing nanoseconds
> > + *
> > + * Returns the monotonically increasing number of nanoseconds
> > + * since the system booted via __monotonic_clock()
> > + */
> > +nsec_t do_monotonic_clock(void)
> > +{
> > + nsec_t ret;
> > + unsigned long seq;
> > +
> > + /* atomically read __monotonic_clock() */
> > + do {
> > + seq = read_seqbegin(&system_time_lock);
> > +
> > + ret = __monotonic_clock();
> > +
> > + } while (read_seqretry(&system_time_lock, seq));
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
>
> ... but this conflicts with Nish's softtimer patches, which is
> implemented slightly differently. For those of us who are real gluttons
> for punishment, and want both sets of patches, are there problems just
> removing one of the do_monotonic_clock definitions?

No, in fact, that would be expected. If you are going to apply John's
patches and mine, then you can remove the definition I put in time.c
(technically, I probably should have put that definition in a #ifndef
CONFIG_NEWTOD/#endif block).

My version is basically a non-NEWTOD attempt to get nanosecond uptime.
But, if you have John's timesources, then use them :)

Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-07-16 18:51    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans