[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <463220C8.5060408@hp.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:11:52 -0400
From: Peter Keilty <peter.keilty@...com>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
Cc: linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Eric Whitney <eric.whitney@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ia64: convert to use clocksource code
Daniel Walker wrote:
>On Fri, 2007-04-27 at 11:42 -0400, Peter Keilty wrote:
>
>
>
>>>There is a read(), and a vread() did you modify the slow syscall path to
>>>use the vread()?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I miss type, read().
>>
>>
>
>John mentioned that he thought fsys_mmio_ptr could be held in the vread
>pointer. vread() is used in x86 for vsyscalls. It looks like you've used
>the update_vsyscall() which is also used for vsyscalls. So vread could
>also be used .. Have you considered that at all?
>
>
No, but yes it can be done, overloading the meaning.
It would need to change in the future if vread was needed.
I have no strong argument against using it.
Although we may still need the IA64 define, I removed 32bit read mmio and
if that is brought back the fast syscall patch call will need to have a
field in the
clocksource struct that would indicated that. Waiting on comments about
that...
John and discuss this awhile back felt it was not needed, may prove wrong.
>Daniel
>
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists