On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 02:11:02PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > Now, I suspect the difficult part will be finding someone with the > time and interest to try get the vdso gettime working on ia64 (or > s390 or powerpc), and then try to unify the kernel side > implementation. Reducing the maintenance burden might not be > inspirational enough, especially if there is a small performance > cost along with it.
Small performance cost verses correct time keeping? I couldn't help but notice all of the leap second issues and fixes that, once again, appeared this summer. It is great that John looks after this stuff, but I cannot avoid the image of Hans Brinker stopping leaks with his fingers. There is a way to fix this issue once and for all (as we discussed before). But in order to implement it, one would have to change all of the vdsos, too. So if there is way to refactor the vdsos, then I see this as a most "inspirational" task. > And also, all this discussion is a bit far afield of the patchset > I'm proposing here. :) I'd still like to hear any thoughts on it > from the various arch maintainers, otherwise I'll submit it to (Sorry for the continuing off topic rant) Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
