On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 16:28 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, john stultz wrote: > > > Huh. So if I understand you properly, all timesources should have valid > > read_fnct pointers that return the cycle value, however we'll still > > preserve the type and mmio_ptr so fsyscall/vsyscall bits can use them > > externally? > > > > Hmm. I'm a little cautious, as I really want to make the vsyscall > > gettimeofday and regular do_gettimeofday be a similar as possible to > > avoid some of the bugs we've seen between different gettimeofday > > implementations. However I'm not completely against the idea. > > > > Christoph: Do you have any thoughts on this? > > Sorry to be late to the party. It would be a weird implementation to have > two ways to obtain time for each timesource. Also would be even more a > headache to maintain than the existing fastcall vs. fullcall.
That's my feeling as well, unless a more convincing argument comes up. thanks -john - 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/