Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] timekeeping: Added a function to return tv_sec portion of ktime_get_real_ts64() | Date | Tue, 28 Oct 2014 16:50:01 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday 28 October 2014 16:43:42 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > +time64_t ktime_get_real_seconds(void) > > +{ > > + time64_t seconds; > > + struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper; > > + unsigned int seq; > > + > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_64BIT)) > > + return tk->xtime_sec; > > + > > + do { > > + seq = read_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq); > > + seconds = tk->xtime_sec; > > + > > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&tk_core.seq, seq)); > > + > > + return seconds; > > +} > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ktime_get_real_seconds); > > Nice and clean implementation! Though I wonder whether we should just > name it get_seconds64(). >
I don't have a strong opinion here, I suggested ktime_get_real_seconds() for consistency with ktime_get_real_ts64(), but get_seconds64() would make as much sense.
As I mentioned in my other reply, we have also concluded that returning 'unsigned long' from get_seconds() at the moment is actually not a problem for y2038 because it will do the right until 2106 by returning the unsigned lower 32-bit of the correct 64-bit number, so we might not actually need this one.
I also don't have a strong opinion on this matter, adding it would make it easier for developers to pick get_seconds64/ktime_get_real_ts64() and understand that it's correct without having to know the finer details of the time_t/ulong distinction.
Arnd
| |