[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812202134330.3376@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:37:32 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
cc: Eric Sesterhenn <snakebyte@....de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] posix-timers: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW: fix the usage of
->it_clock
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 12/20, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > > -static int common_timer_create(struct k_itimer *new_timer)
> > > +static inline int
> > > +__common_timer_init(struct k_itimer *timer, enum hrtimer_mode mode)
> > > {
> > > - hrtimer_init(&new_timer->it.real.timer, new_timer->it_clock, 0);
> > > + clockid_t clock_id = timer->it_clock ?
> > > + CLOCK_MONOTONIC : CLOCK_REALTIME;
> > > + hrtimer_init(&timer->it.real.timer, clock_id, mode);
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> >
> > No, this is wrong. We do not want to create a timer for
> > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW.
>
> OK, thanks.
>
> I thought that the intent was to allow the creation.
No.
1. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW and CLOCK_MONOTONIC are diffferent beasts
2. CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW was created to allow user space to read out the
non NTP frequency corrected raw system time. That's mainly for the NTP
folks so they have a better idea what's the hardware's idea of time
is.
> Then we should we shoould add clock_monotonic_raw->timer_create()
> which returns -EINVAL ?
That's what I just sent out :) I looked into this offline and had the
fix ready to send out when I noticed yours.
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