Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 24 Feb 2016 15:07:36 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] time: Add history to cross timestamp interface supporting slower devices | From | John Stultz <> |
| |
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Christopher S. Hall wrote: >> +{ >> + struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper; >> + bool interp_forward; >> + u64 corr_raw, corr_real; >> + int ret; > > Once more: > > struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper; > u64 corr_raw, corr_real; > bool interp_forward; > int ret; > > Is way simpler to parse fast.
So I just went through and addressed these formatting issues in my tree.
but....
>> @@ -929,6 +1046,12 @@ int get_device_system_crosststamp(int (*get_time_fn) >> ktime_t base_real; >> s64 nsec_raw; >> s64 nsec_real; >> + cycles_t cycles; >> + cycle_t now;
I just noticed this train-wreck: cycles_t and cycle_t are obnoxiously different types. (One is an int on some arches and the other is a u64).
You very much want to use cycle_t here. And I think that goes for the introduced cycle_between() function.
So I'm fixing that up as well in this patch, but there's a few other spots in this series too.
Sigh. Going to have to find some time to go through and try to zap cycles_t in the kernel because having both is just asking for trouble. :P
thanks -john
| |