[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1101141030400.2678@localhost6.localdomain6>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 10:31:19 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
cc: 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>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 08/13] posix clocks: cleanup the CLOCK_DISPTACH
macro
On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:24PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Richard Cochran wrote:
> > > int posix_cpu_clock_getres(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts);
> > > int posix_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts);
> > > -int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, const struct timespec *ts);
> > > +int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts);
> >
> > Shouldn't we change the clock_set function to have *ts const in all places ?
>
> Yes, your are right.
>
> > > @@ -293,6 +261,11 @@ static __init int init_posix_timers(void)
> > > .clock_adj = do_posix_clock_noadjtime,
> > > .timer_create = no_timer_create,
> > > .nsleep = no_nsleep,
> > > + /* defaults: */
> > > + .nsleep_restart = common_nsleep_restart,
> > > + .timer_del = common_timer_del,
> > > + .timer_get = common_timer_get,
> > > + .timer_set = common_timer_set,
> >
> > Hmm, we do not need to set functional entries for clocks which neither
> > implement timer_create nor nsleep.
>
> I know, but I wanted to be really pendantic about what the previous
> code was, and what the new code does.
>
> Before: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock
> selects common_xyz. This common function may or may make
> sense for that clock.
>
> After: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock will
> return EINVAL for that syscall.
>
> Maybe it would be better to leave the cleaning up of the common crud
> as a follow up patch. What do you think?
Fair enough.
--
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