[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1248961750.6046.35.camel@desktop>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:49:10 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com>
To: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.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 Thu, 2009-07-30 at 15:04 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 05:49:33 -0700
> Daniel Walker <dwalker@...o99.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 12:53 +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> >
> > > > 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..
> >
> > I would agree if the system doesn't crash as a result, if it just starts
> > to operate funny then that's maybe acceptable. If you keep the change
> > rating function, you could potentially remove the unregister path..
>
> Why shouldn't it be possible to have a clocksource as a module? I think
> that the unregister path should stay. To really make it work we'd need
> a function to force the system out of the one-shot mode though.
Because I don't think there is a sane reason to allow it. It should be
more like if someone has a need for it, then let them add back the
unregister path and explain why they need it.
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