On 05.09.2005 [22:57:14 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:04:24AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > However, we could change "handler" to be a function pointer which
> > > returns the number of missed ticks instead, and then updates the
> > > kernels time and tick keeping. That would probably be more efficient.
> >
> > Yes, I think
> >
> > unsigned long (*recover_time)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *);
> >
> > or something similar (not sure about the params), might be more
> > appropriate.
>
> What would this be for x86? This could be cur_timer->mark_offset()
> itself for now i think, until John's TOD comes along.
Yes, exactly, I was planning on hooking into the timer_opts for x86,
until John's timesource rework occured, which will keep the code pretty
similar across the change, but helps keep it clear *why* we are calling
mark_offset(), at least to me.
Thanks,
Nish
-
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]
| |
 |