[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2d213ad9-fa40-1f1e-90a9-404764969d35@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 14:36:40 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 4/5] PTP: add PTP_SYS_OFFSET emulation via cross
timestamps infrastructure
On 20/01/2017 14:07, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:55:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/2017 13:20, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Why not leave this in drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c?
>
> timekeeper_lock
Why does emulate_ptp_sys_offset need it, if the current PTP_SYS_OFFSET
code doesn't? Is the latency acceptable (considering this is a raw spin
lock) or is there a seqlock that we can use instead (such as tk_core.seq
like in get_device_system_crosststamp)?
>>> + if (ptp->info->emulate_ptp_sys_offset_mean) {
>>> + err = emulate_ptp_sys_offset(ptp->info, sysoff, arg);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>
>> I think this should be simply "if (!ptp->info->gettime64)" and,
>> likewise, there should be an emulation based getcrosststamp in
>> ptp_clock_gettime.
>>
>> Paolo
>
> gettime64 is called directly via ptp_clock_gettime.
Yes, but ptp_clock_gettime can be taught to use getcrosststamp instead.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists