[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <515A0E69.2040604@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2013 16:47:05 -0600
From: David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Add tracepoints for xtime changes - v2
On 4/1/13 4:16 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> I guess what I'm getting at is: What ABI are we creating here? Can
> these tracepoints come and go without any consequence? Or would changing
> them in the future cause application breakage?
>
> I'm somewhat worried even trace_tod_update() is maybe too vague (again
> not that the name specifically is critical, but that the semantics we're
> specifying are clear). In other words, I think you're wanting a
> tracepoint at any time CLOCK_REALTIME is updated by anything other then
> the normal progression of time? Is that right?
yes. essentially everywhere timekeeping_update() is called except
update_wall_time().
>
> You may want to also include the leapsecond modification in the tracing
> as well.
I thought those were covered as well. hmm... maybe not if it triggers in
update_wall_time.
David
--
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