time.c vs. timer.c: patch snipplet

["Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

Hi,

maybe some of you know my PPSkit that implements (among others) a new kernel clock 
with nanoseconds resolution for Linux 2.4 (i386). During that I tried to 
streamline the code a bit, specifically moving most clock stuff from timer.c and 
sched.c into time.c. You can make most of the NTP state variables static by doing 
so. I did restrict access to messing with the NTP variables that way, too.

Similarly timex.h should only contain NTP related stuff. Currently timex seems to 
be a "catch all" for add-ons. This mean that about any module includes timex.h, 
and upon changing a single NTP define, about 98% of the kernel are recompiled.

As I'm currently working on a merge of the updated NTP algorithms into 2.6, I 
thought I could ask for opinions here. (I'm not subscribed, so please CC: to me).

As I've done some work already, I'm going to present a patch snipplet that you may 
consider applying without great thought:

I really didn't understand what "if (unlikely(time_adjust < 0)) {" is trying to 
fix:

diff -u -r1.1.1.10 time.c
--- arch/i386/kernel/time.c	15 Jan 2006 06:16:02 -0000	1.1.1.10
+++ arch/i386/kernel/time.c	7 Feb 2006 20:24:51 -0000
@@ -126,7 +128,6 @@
 {
 	unsigned long seq;
 	unsigned long usec, sec;
-	unsigned long max_ntp_tick;
 
 	do {
 		unsigned long lost;
@@ -141,22 +142,15 @@
 		 * so make sure not to go into next possible interval.
 		 * Better to lose some accuracy than have time go backwards..
 		 */
-		if (unlikely(time_adjust < 0)) {
-			max_ntp_tick = (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ) - tickadj;
-			usec = min(usec, max_ntp_tick);
-
-			if (lost)
-				usec += lost * max_ntp_tick;
-		}
-		else if (unlikely(lost))
-			usec += lost * (USEC_PER_SEC / HZ);
+		if (unlikely(lost))
+			usec += lost * tick_usec;
 
 		sec = xtime.tv_sec;
 		usec += (xtime.tv_nsec / 1000);
 	} while (read_seqretry(&xtime_lock, seq));
 
-	while (usec >= 1000000) {
-		usec -= 1000000;
+	while (usec >= USEC_PER_SEC) {
+		usec -= USEC_PER_SEC;
 		sec++;
 	}
 

Also, I don't quite like the name "ntp_clear()": Is it a query, ot is it a 
command? I'd prefer "set_ntp_unsync()", beacsue it says very much what it's about. 
Likewise "ntp_synced()" might look like the opposite of "ntp_clear()" at first, 
but it's actually a query, thus I'd prefer something like "is_ntp_synced()". 
Actually it's "is_ntp_not_unsync()", but we only have binary logic here ;-)

Regards,
Ulrich

-
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/