Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 16 Jul 2005 09:44:47 -0700 | From | Nishanth Aravamudan <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |