Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:57:21 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] time: Cleanup offs_real/wall_to_mono and offs_boot/total_sleep_time updates |
| |
* John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 07/19/2012 02:33 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >* John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: > > > >>+static void tk_set_sleep_time(struct timekeeper *tk, struct timespec t) > >>+{ > >>+ /* Verify consistency before modifying */ > >>+ WARN_ON_ONCE(tk->offs_boot.tv64 != > >>+ timespec_to_ktime(tk->total_sleep_time).tv64); > >asserts like this can be put into a single line - we rarely need > >to read them if they don't trigger - and making them > >non-intrusive oneliners is a bonus. > > Ack. > > >> @@ -456,8 +478,8 @@ int timekeeping_inject_offset(struct timespec *ts) > >> tk_xtime_add(&timekeeper, ts); > >>- timekeeper.wall_to_monotonic = > >>- timespec_sub(timekeeper.wall_to_monotonic, *ts); > >>+ tk_set_wall_to_mono(&timekeeper, > >>+ timespec_sub(timekeeper.wall_to_monotonic, *ts)); > >There's a *lot* of unnecessary ugliness here and in many other > >places in kernel/time/ due to repeating patterns of > >"timekeeper.", which gets repeated many times and blows up line > >length. > > > >Please add this to the highest level (system call, irq handler, > >etc.) code: > > > > struct timekeeper *tk = &timekeeper; > > > >and pass that down to lower levels. The tk-> pattern will be the > >obvious thing to type in typical time handling functions. > > > >This increases readability and clarifies the data flow and might > >bring other advantages in the future. > > Sounds good. Are you ok if this is done in a follow-on patch?
Yeah, sure - the code is going in the right direction in general, so no hurry.
Thanks,
Ingo
| |