[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101223061359.GA7169@riccoc20.at.omicron.at>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 07:13:59 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: "Kuwahara,T." <6vvetjsrt26xsrzlh1z0zn4d2grdah@...il.com>
Cc: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...ux.it>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 1/8] ntp: add ADJ_SETOFFSET mode bit
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 05:27:58AM +0900, Kuwahara,T. wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:25 AM, john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > I don't see why that would be better then adding a
> > clear new mode flag?
>
> In short, time step is a special case of time slew. Those are the same,
> only different in one parameter, as is shown in my previous post.
> That's why I said there's no need for adding a new mode.
Well, in addition to the objections raised by John, your suggested
implementation is also shortsighted. The field timex.constant is
copied into time_constant in some code paths. Obviously, this would be
a bad thing when timex.constant==-huge.
So, you need to clarify the interaction between ADJ_OFFSET,
ADJ_TIMECONST, ADJ_TAI, timex.constant, time_constant, and MAXTC.
If you would fully implement your idea, I expect it would become
obvious that it a bit of a hack, both in the kernel code and in the
user space interface. But, if you disagree, please just post a patch
with the complete implementation...
Thanks,
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists