[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809161129520.1650@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2018 11:39:04 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matt Rickard <matt@...trans.com.au>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 11/11] x66/vdso: Add CLOCK_TAI support
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sep 14, 2018, at 7:27 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> That’s... horrible. In an amazing way. Can you add BUILD_BUG_ON somewhere
> >> to assert that this actually works?
> >
> > Sure, but changing any of the clock ids will cause more wreckage than that.
> >
> I’m more concerned that we add a new one and break the magic
> masking. Maybe two start sharing the same slot.
You are right. The obvious extension is CLOCK_BOOTTIME. That's id 7 which
indeed conflicts. I'll remove the magic.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists