On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 2:35:48 pm Alexander Motin wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:01:14 pm Alexander Motin wrote: > >> John Baldwin wrote: > >>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:59:46 am Alexander Motin wrote: > >>>> John Baldwin wrote: > >>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:31:27 am Alexander Motin wrote: > >>>>>> Author: mav > >>>>>> Date: Wed Jul 14 13:31:27 2010 > >>>>>> New Revision: 210054 > >>>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/210054 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Log: > >>>>>> Move timeevents.c to MI code, as it is not x86-specific. I already > >>>>>> have > >>>>>> it working on Marvell ARM SoCs, and it would be nice to unify timer > >>> code > >>>>>> between more platforms. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Added: > >>>>>> head/sys/kern/timeevents.c > >>>>>> - copied unchanged from r210053, head/sys/x86/x86/timeevents.c > >>>>>> Deleted: > >>>>>> head/sys/x86/x86/timeevents.c > >>>>>> Modified: > >>>>>> head/sys/conf/files.amd64 > >>>>>> head/sys/conf/files.i386 > >>>>>> head/sys/conf/files.pc98 > >>>>> Can this be merged with kern_et.c, > >>>> They are different. kern_et.c provides event timer drivers API, > >>>> timeevents.c consumes it to manage kernel clocks. kern_et.c > >>>> theoretically can be used without timeevents.c if some other code > >>>> consume timers, for example, exposing them to user-level. > >>>> > >>>> May be names indeed cryptic a bit, but I had no better ideas. > >>>> > >>>>> or perhaps called subr_eventtimers.c instead? > >>>> Whatever you like, but why exactly so and why "subr_" important? > >>> The vast majority of files in sys/kern use some sort of prefix, either > >>> sys_*, > >>> kern_*, subr_*, etc. subr_ was just a suggestion to avoid clashing with > >>> kern_et.c. If timeevents.c is specific to clocks then maybe it should > >>> have > >>> 'clock' in its name somehow? Right now having kern_et == > >>> kern_eventtimer.c > >>> and timeevents.c is a bit ambiguous. Somehow making it clear that > >>> timeevents.c is for clocks might help. > >> We already have kern_clock.c and subr_clock.c. kern_clock.c is quite > >> close by meaning. What's about kern_clocksource.c? > > > > Ok. I assume it would not be easy to just merge this file into kern_clock.c > > itself? > > At least not until all architectures will adapt to it.
Do you think that is the long term goal? If so, you could put this code into kern_clock.c and selectively enable it with a macro defined in <machine/param.h> as a temporary measure until all platforms have adopted it. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
