[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1292970355.2618.76.camel@work-vm>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:25:55 -0800
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: "Kuwahara,T." <6vvetjsrt26xsrzlh1z0zn4d2grdah@...il.com>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/8] ntp: add ADJ_SETOFFSET mode bit
On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 05:57 +0900, Kuwahara,T. wrote:
> How about this?
>
> if (txc->modes & ADJ_OFFSET) {
> if (txc->constant == INT32_MIN) {
> /* step time */
> } else {
> /* slew time */
> }
> }
This looks like magic behavior. Sort of a "knock twice and then say the
password" interface. I don't see why that would be better then adding a
clear new mode flag?
> That said, I'm somehow against the idea of using the adjtimex syscall
> for that purpose.
Could you expand on why you don't like this?
thanks
-john
--
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