Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] new timeofday core subsystem

[Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>]

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/