Re: [RFC - 0/9] Generic timekeeping subsystem (v. B5)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 21:49 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005, john stultz wrote:
> 
> > 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?
> 
> The example here doesn't keep the complete system time, just enough to 
> compute the difference.

Hey Roman, 

Ok, well, I'm still at a loss for understanding how this avoids my
concern about time inconsistencies. However, I don't want to burn any
more of your patience explaining it, so in the hopes making some
productive outcome, I'm going to take a step back, pull the most trivial
and uncontroversial cleanups and fixes in my patches and try to send
them to Andrew one by one.

Hopefully that will give me a chance to spend some time and understand
your suggestions (or maybe allow someone else to express your
suggestions differently) and think of alternate solutions without
feeling like I'm constantly running into walls.

Again, I really do appreciate the time you've spent giving me feedback.

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/
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]
  Powered by Linux