On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <johns...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Yea, I wanted to revisit this, because it is an odd case. > > We don't want to call getnstimeofday() while the timekeeping code is > suspended, since the clocksource cycle_last value may be invalid if the > hardware was reset during suspend. Kees is correct, the WARN_ONs were > there to make sure no one tries to use the timekeeping core before its > resumed, so removing them is problematic. > > Your sugggestion of having the __do_gettimeofday() internal accessor that > maybe returns an error if timekeeping has been suspended could work. > > The other possibility is depending on the needs for accuracy with the > timestamp, current_kernel_time() might be a better interface to use, since > it will return the time at the last tick, and doesn't require accessing the > clocksource hardware. Might that be a simpler solution? Or is sub-tick > granularity necessary?
I think it's only useful to have this to the same granularity as sched_clock(), so things can be correlated to dmesg output. If it's the same, I'd be fine to switch to using current_kernel_time(). -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- 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/
