On 24/06/13 17:30, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > We already have a synchronous notifier in place and the notifier call > itself is not expensive. What's expensive is the hypercall and there > is no way at the moment to figure out whether the update is relevant > for you or just a tick. Though that's trivial information to provide > without imposing another notifier including the surrounding mess on > the core code.
This looks good, thanks. > --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c > +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c [...] > @@ -508,7 +509,7 @@ int do_settimeofday(const struct timespec *tv) > > tk_set_xtime(tk, tv); > > - timekeeping_update(tk, true, true); > + timekeeping_update(tk, true, true, true); These three booleans in a row is getting a bit opaque. How about I also change it to a set of flags? e.g., timekeeping_updated(tk, TK_CLEAR_NTP | TK_MIRROR | TK_CLOCK_WAS_SET); David -- 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/
