On 20/01/2017 14:07, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:55:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20/01/2017 13:20, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> Why not leave this in drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c?
>
> timekeeper_lock
Why does emulate_ptp_sys_offset need it, if the current PTP_SYS_OFFSET
code doesn't? Is the latency acceptable (considering this is a raw spin
lock) or is there a seqlock that we can use instead (such as tk_core.seq
like in get_device_system_crosststamp)?
>>> + if (ptp->info->emulate_ptp_sys_offset_mean) {
>>> + err = emulate_ptp_sys_offset(ptp->info, sysoff, arg);
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>
>> I think this should be simply "if (!ptp->info->gettime64)" and,
>> likewise, there should be an emulation based getcrosststamp in
>> ptp_clock_gettime.
>>
>> Paolo
>
> gettime64 is called directly via ptp_clock_gettime.
Yes, but ptp_clock_gettime can be taught to use getcrosststamp instead.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
