Re: [PATCH V9 08/13] posix clocks: cleanup the CLOCK_DISPTACH macro
From: Richard Cochran <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-14 07:48:49
Also in:
lkml, netdev
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:24PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Richard Cochran wrote:quoted
int posix_cpu_clock_getres(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts); int posix_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts); -int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, const struct timespec *ts); +int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec *ts);Shouldn't we change the clock_set function to have *ts const in all places ?
Yes, your are right.
quoted
@@ -293,6 +261,11 @@ static __init int init_posix_timers(void) .clock_adj = do_posix_clock_noadjtime, .timer_create = no_timer_create, .nsleep = no_nsleep, + /* defaults: */ + .nsleep_restart = common_nsleep_restart, + .timer_del = common_timer_del, + .timer_get = common_timer_get, + .timer_set = common_timer_set,Hmm, we do not need to set functional entries for clocks which neither implement timer_create nor nsleep.
I know, but I wanted to be really pendantic about what the previous
code was, and what the new code does.
Before: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock
selects common_xyz. This common function may or may make
sense for that clock.
After: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock will
return EINVAL for that syscall.
Maybe it would be better to leave the cleaning up of the common crud
as a follow up patch. What do you think?
Richard