Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] time: Add history to cross timestamp interface supporting slower devices

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Thomas Gleixner [off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, 22 Feb 2016, Christopher S. Hall wrote:

quoted

+{
+     struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper;
+     bool interp_forward;
+     u64 corr_raw, corr_real;
+     int ret;

Once more:

        struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper;
        u64 corr_raw, corr_real;
        bool interp_forward;
        int ret;

Is way simpler to parse fast.

So I just went through and addressed these formatting issues in my tree.

but....

quoted

@@ -929,6 +1046,12 @@ int get_device_system_crosststamp(int (*get_time_fn)
      ktime_t base_real;
      s64 nsec_raw;
      s64 nsec_real;
+     cycles_t cycles;
+     cycle_t now;

I just noticed this train-wreck: cycles_t and cycle_t are obnoxiously
different types. (One is an int on some arches and the other is a
u64).

You very much want to use cycle_t here. And I think that goes for the
introduced cycle_between() function.

So I'm fixing that up as well in this patch, but there's a few other
spots in this series too.

Sigh. Going to have to find some time to go through and try to zap
cycles_t in the kernel  because having both is just asking for
trouble.  :P

thanks
-john