[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0811252215270.3235@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:22:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
lethal@...ux-sh.org, johnstul@...ibm.com, mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] Reentrant clock sources
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Is there any special reason behind the non-reentrant clock source
> code? I'm writing some timer help code and getting the struct
> clocksource as argument to the callbacks would make the code much
> cleaner and better.
Why do you want that ? And what has reentrancy to do with the
clocksource argument to read() ?
> Extending the callbacks to be able to start and stop clock sources
> for improved power management would be good too in my opinion.
> Any thoughts?
What have you in mind there ? Starting / stopping a clocksource when
what happens ? You can't stop them randomly except you want to screw
timekeeping.
> + cycle_t (*vread)(struct clocksource *cs);
This is crap. vread can not access the clocksource.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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