[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > IMO it least at needs one more iteration to address the comments that
> > were made (not just mine), in the short term the less it touches
> > unconditionally the less I care right now.
> I don't have a clue which review comments remain unaddressed - do you recall?

Outside clockevents I'd like to see at least the flag handling fixed
before it gets merged.
Inside clockevents I could poke around forever...

> > In the long term IMO this might need a major rework, the basic problem I
> > have is that I don't see how this usable beyond dynticks/hrtimer, e.g. how
> > to dynamically manage multiple timer.
> I'm not sure I understand that. Are you referring to multiple,
> concurrently-operating hardware clock sources? <wonders how that could
> work> If so, that's more a clocksource thing than a dynticks/hrtimer thing,
> isn't it?

A rather simple example would be profiling, where a separate timer is
useful to see stuff that runs from the main timer, which is currently
It's insofar a clocksource thing as clock source and clock events should
form a union, currently it's separate and that's a big problem. It's not
really problem to have multiple clock sources and they don't really have
to be synchronized with each other, but events _are_ connected to the
source they are coming from.
In the end we could even expose multiple clocks via the posix clock/timer
interface, but with the current design I don't see how this is possible.

bye, Roman
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-12-06 13:37    [W:0.071 / U:7.668 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site