[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa1ec910-b7b6-2568-4583-5fa47aac367f@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 00:36:42 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu@....com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
yangbo.lu@....com, john.stultz@...aro.org,
sean.j.christopherson@...el.com, maz@...nel.org,
richardcochran@...il.com, Mark.Rutland@....com, will@...nel.org,
suzuki.poulose@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Steve.Capper@....com, Kaly.Xin@....com,
justin.he@....com, nd@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] timekeeping: Add clocksource to
system_time_snapshot
On 15/10/19 22:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 15/10/19 12:48, Jianyong Wu wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
>
> You're sure about having reviewed that in detail?
I did review the patch; the void* ugliness is not in this one, and I do
have some other qualms on that one.
> This changelog is telling absolutely nothing WHY anything outside of the
> timekeeping core code needs access to the current clocksource. Neither does
> it tell why it is safe to provide the pointer to random callers.
Agreed on the changelog, but the pointer to a clocksource is already
part of the timekeeping external API via struct system_counterval_t.
get_device_system_crosststamp for example expects a clocksource pointer
but provides no way to get such a pointer.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists