[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <be7701cb-c0f0-a357-ba99-8f86a18060c2@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2018 13:45:33 +0530
From: Mukesh Ojha <mojha@...eaurora.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: john.stultz@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
neeraju@...eaurora.org, gkohli@...eaurora.org,
cpandya@...eaurora.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] time: Fix sleeptime injection for non-stop clocksource
& persistent clock
Hi Thomas,
Could you raise a formal patch on this as you are the author now?
Thanks,
Mukesh
On 6/25/2018 8:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Mukesh Ojha wrote:
>> On 6/23/2018 2:57 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> @@ -1671,7 +1685,6 @@ void timekeeping_resume(void)
>>> struct timespec64 ts_new, ts_delta;
>>> u64 cycle_now;
>>> - sleeptime_injected = false;
>>> read_persistent_clock64(&ts_new);
>>> clockevents_resume();
>>> @@ -1743,6 +1756,8 @@ int timekeeping_suspend(void)
>>> if (timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_sec ||
>>> timekeeping_suspend_time.tv_nsec)
>>> persistent_clock_exists = true;
>>> + sleeptime_injected = false;
>> I did not get the exact valid point of moving it from `timekeeping_suspend` to
>> `timekeeping_resume`.
> It's the other way round. I move it from resume to suspend. Simply because
> it should only be set to 'false' when suspend is reached. It would work the
> other way round as well, but I felt it's inconsistent.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists