[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzAvSe9WjSgyUHns+Z3LbpMFWSU_uze0B8XTRzbnk3rVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 16:00:00 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@...roid.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] printk updates for 4.15
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> +/*
> + * struct timestanps - Simultaneous mono/boot/real timestamps
> + * @mono: Monotonic timestamp
> + * @boot: Boottime timestamp
> + * @real: Realtime timestamp
> + */
Side note: does anybody really wanr/need the boottime thing?
I can definitely understand why people want a monotonic clock (since
ordering is meaningful). And at the same time, it's pretty obvious
that wall clock is meaningful.
Who really wants that boot time thing when you have those two? I get
the feeling hat nobody really wanted it, and it was just added for
completeness.
I don't think 'struct printk_log' is _that_ size sensitive, but it
does seem to be a bad idea to add 8 bytes without having a good reason
for it. The other times seem to have good reasons, not so much the
boot one.
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists