On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, John Stultz wrote:
> On 02/20/2014 01:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Feb 2014, John Stultz wrote:
> >> On 02/20/2014 12:40 AM, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/time.h b/include/uapi/linux/time.h
> >>> index e75e1b6..bb8dc60 100644
> >>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/time.h
> >>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/time.h
> >>> @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@ struct itimerval {
> >>> #define CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM 9
> >>> #define CLOCK_SGI_CYCLE 10 /* Hardware specific */
> >>> #define CLOCK_TAI 11
> >>> +#define CLOCK_REALTIME_DEFERRABLE 12
> >>> +#define CLOCK_MONOTONIC_DEFERRABLE 13
> >>> +#define CLOCK_BOOTTIME_DEFERRABLE 14
> >> Adding the deferrable HRTIMER bases above is right, but I don't think we
> >> agreed on adding the _DEFERRABLE clockids.
> >>
> >> I'd instead prefer you use add a new TIMER_DEFERABLE flags argument, and
> >> use the combination of the clockid + flag to decide which HRTIMER base
> >> is used.
> > And how does that work with anything else than timerfd? If we add
> > deferrable posix clocks then we add them for the other interfaces
> > which take a clockid as well.
> Other interfaces have flag arguments as well (for things like
> TIMER_ABSTIME).
Fair enough. Let me look tomorrow what implications that
has. Definitely a bit more intrusive, but probably more elegant.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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/
