Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 22 May 2012 06:25:34 +0200 | From | Richard Cochran <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC V2 4/6] time: introduce leap second functional interface |
| |
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
| |