[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090730125351.6f16e9ec@skybase>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:53:51 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: dwalker@...o99.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][patch 00/12] clocksource / timekeeping rework V2
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:17:16 -0600
dwalker@...o99.com wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 19:09 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:02:21 -0600
> > dwalker@...o99.com wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 18:50 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > void clocksource_change_rating(struct clocksource *cs, int rating)
> > >
> > > > the two functions do different things. What exactly is the idea you've
> > > > got in mind?
> > >
> > > It's only the case when the rating goes to zero .. That makes the
> > > clocksource unusable, which is very much like unregistering it..
> >
> > True, the clocksource code won't pick the clock any more as long as
> > there is an alternative clock available. It still shows up in the list
> > of clocks though and you can do an override with it.
>
> I'm not sure allowing that type of override a good idea tho .. I don't
> think it's considered a usable clock when the rating goes to zero.
Override as the root user -> your foot, no? The whole override stuff is
there for the case that the clocksource selection picked a broken clock
and you want to force the system into a semi-working state. Ideally the
whole override would go away, but that is probably wishful thinking..
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
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