Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262170AbVCOAo5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:44:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262149AbVCOAoJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:44:09 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:31626 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262160AbVCOAnV (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:43:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] new timeofday core subsystem (v. A3) From: john stultz To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Matt Mackall , lkml , Tim Schmielau , George Anzinger , albert@users.sourceforge.net, Ulrich Windl , Dominik Brodowski , David Mosberger , Andi Kleen , paulus@samba.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, keith maanthey , Patricia Gaughen , Chris McDermott , Max Asbock , mahuja@us.ibm.com, Nishanth Aravamudan , Darren Hart , "Darrick J. Wong" , Anton Blanchard , donf@us.ibm.com In-Reply-To: References: <1110590655.30498.327.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050313004902.GD3163@waste.org> <1110825765.30498.370.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <20050314192918.GC32638@waste.org> <1110829401.30498.383.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:43:14 -0800 Message-Id: <1110847394.30498.423.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1225 Lines: 29 On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:28 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, john stultz wrote: > > > Huh. So if I understand you properly, all timesources should have valid > > read_fnct pointers that return the cycle value, however we'll still > > preserve the type and mmio_ptr so fsyscall/vsyscall bits can use them > > externally? > > > > Hmm. I'm a little cautious, as I really want to make the vsyscall > > gettimeofday and regular do_gettimeofday be a similar as possible to > > avoid some of the bugs we've seen between different gettimeofday > > implementations. However I'm not completely against the idea. > > > > Christoph: Do you have any thoughts on this? > > Sorry to be late to the party. It would be a weird implementation to have > two ways to obtain time for each timesource. Also would be even more a > headache to maintain than the existing fastcall vs. fullcall. That's my feeling as well, unless a more convincing argument comes up. thanks -john - 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/