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
