On Mon, 15 Aug 2005, john stultz wrote: > Sorry. It was subtle, but after thinking more about your arguments, I've > stepped back from my earlier goals of replacing the timekeeping code for > all arches and instead I've decided to just focus on allowing > architectures that would duplicate code using a continuous timesource > use a common code base.
Thats great! > Think of it more as a replacement for the time_interpolator code (which > thanks to Christoph Lameter, it is quite influenced by). I have no objection to replacing the time_interpolator code if the timesources provide a superset of functionality. Rename time_interpolator to timesource (including all currently existing interpolator defintions which will become time sources) and modify/add fields to be able to satisfy your requirements. The interpolator compensations may become not necessary if the upper layers can deal with discrepancies between timer interrupts and actual intervals occurring between these interrupts and if the upper layer can adjust the time source in use. You mentioned that the NTP code has some issues with time interpolation at the KS. This is due to the NTP layer not being aware of actual time differences between timer interrupts that the interpolator knows about. If the NTP layer would be aware of the actual intervals measured by the timesource (or interpolator) then presumably time could be adjusted in a more accurate way. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
