[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87zg96n12k.ffs@tglx>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 22:46:59 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Josh Stone <jistone@...hat.com>, Asahi Lina <lina@...hilina.net>,
Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
asahi@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rust: time: New module for timekeeping functions
On Tue, Feb 21 2023 at 09:13, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 2/21/23 4:32 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> Now the problem is that 'Instant' in it's specification is bound to
>> CLOCK_MONOTONIC and there is no way to express CLOCK_BOOTTIME, but
>> that's a shortcoming of the spec which ignores CLOCK_BOOTTIME
>> completely. IOW, that's also a problem for user space.
>
> That's not exactly *specified* -- it's meant to be opaque time. It is
> documented that this currently uses clock_gettime monotonic on unix
> targets, but "Disclaimer: These system calls might change over time."
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC isn't even consistent across unix targets whether that
> counts suspended time. It's been debated if we should switch to
> CLOCK_BOOTTIME on Linux, but for now we're sticking to monotonic:
You'll need both when you want to implement substantial parts of the low
level user space stack in Rust. Same for CLOCK_TAI.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists