On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 20:48 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, john stultz wrote: > > > Ok, so then to clarify the above (as you mention gettimeofday uses > > system_time), would your gettimeofday look something like: > > > > gettiemofday(): > > return (system_time + (cycle_offset * mult) + error)>> shift > > > > ? > > No. > > reference_time = xtime; > system_time = xtime + error >> shift; > gettimeofday = system_time + (cycle_offset * mult) >> shift; Eh? In your example code from before you look to be keeping the system_time and error values in shifted nsec units. from your example: > // at init: system_update = update_cycles * mult; > system_time += system_update; and: > error = system_time - (xtime.tv_nsec << shift); This doesn't seem to make sense with the above. Could you clarify? thanks -john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- References:
- [RFC - 0/13] NTP cleanup work (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: john stultz <[email protected]>
- Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- [RFC - 0/13] NTP cleanup work (v. B5)
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] cpu_exclusive sched domains on partial nodes temp fix
- Next by Date: [no subject]
- Previous by thread: Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- Next by thread: Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)
- Index(es):