Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2 | From | john stultz <> | Date | Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:16:27 -0700 |
| |
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 06:49 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:04 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:49:33 -0700 > > Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 12:53 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm not sure allowing that type of override a good idea tho .. I don't > > > > > think it's considered a usable clock when the rating goes to zero. > > > > > > > > Override as the root user -> your foot, no? The whole override stuff is > > > > there for the case that the clocksource selection picked a broken clock > > > > and you want to force the system into a semi-working state. Ideally the > > > > whole override would go away, but that is probably wishful thinking.. > > > > > > I would agree if the system doesn't crash as a result, if it just starts > > > to operate funny then that's maybe acceptable. If you keep the change > > > rating function, you could potentially remove the unregister path.. > > > > Why shouldn't it be possible to have a clocksource as a module? I think > > that the unregister path should stay. To really make it work we'd need > > a function to force the system out of the one-shot mode though. > > Because I don't think there is a sane reason to allow it. It should be > more like if someone has a need for it, then let them add back the > unregister path and explain why they need it.
Clocksources as modules was one of the initial design goals I had way back. The benefit being that an older distro kernel could be made to support newer stranger hardware via a clocksource driver. While the hardware vendors have for the most part consolidated on HPET/ACPI PM which has mostly avoided the need, I still think its worth preserving.
thanks -john
| |