On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 09:29 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:48:51PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > So I'd still split this patch up a little bit more.
> >
> > 1) Patch that implements the ADJ_SETOFFSET (*and its implementation*)
> > in do_adjtimex.
> >
> > 2) Patch that adds the new syscall and clock_id multiplexing.
> >
> > 3) Patches that wire it up to the rest of the architectures (there's
> > still a bunch missing here).
>
> I was not sure what the policy is about adding syscalls. Is it the
> syscall author's responsibility to add it into every arch?
>
> The last time (see a2e2725541fad7) the commit only added half of some
> archs, and ignored others. In my patch, the syscall *really* works on
> the archs that are present in the patch.
>
> (Actually, I did not test blackfin, since I don't have one, but I
> included it since I know they have a PTP hardware clock.)
I'm not sure about policy, but I think for completeness sake you should
make sure every arch supports a new syscall. You're not expected to be
able to test every one, but getting the basic support patch sent to
maintainers should be done.
> > > +static inline int common_clock_adj(const clockid_t which_clock, struct
> > > timex *t)
> > > +{
> > > + if (CLOCK_REALTIME == which_clock)
> > > + return do_adjtimex(t);
> > > + else
> > > + return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +}
> >
> >
> > Would it make sense to point to the do_adjtimex() in the k_clock
> > definition for CLOCK_REALTIME rather then conditionalizing it here?
>
> But what about CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW, for example?
-EOPNOTSUPP
> Does it make sense to allow it to be adjusted?
No. I think only CLOCK_REALTIME would make sense of the existing clocks.
I'm just suggesting you conditionalize it from the function pointer,
rather then in the common function.
thanks
-john
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
