On 05.09.2005 [22:57:14 +0530], Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:04:24AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > However, we could change "handler" to be a function pointer which > > > returns the number of missed ticks instead, and then updates the > > > kernels time and tick keeping. That would probably be more efficient. > > > > Yes, I think > > > > unsigned long (*recover_time)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *); > > > > or something similar (not sure about the params), might be more > > appropriate. > > What would this be for x86? This could be cur_timer->mark_offset() > itself for now i think, until John's TOD comes along.
Yes, exactly, I was planning on hooking into the timer_opts for x86, until John's timesource rework occured, which will keep the code pretty similar across the change, but helps keep it clear *why* we are calling mark_offset(), at least to me. Thanks, Nish - 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/
