On 15/10/19 22:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 15/10/19 12:48, Jianyong Wu wrote: >>> >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > > You're sure about having reviewed that in detail? I did review the patch; the void* ugliness is not in this one, and I do have some other qualms on that one. > This changelog is telling absolutely nothing WHY anything outside of the > timekeeping core code needs access to the current clocksource. Neither does > it tell why it is safe to provide the pointer to random callers. Agreed on the changelog, but the pointer to a clocksource is already part of the timekeeping external API via struct system_counterval_t. get_device_system_crosststamp for example expects a clocksource pointer but provides no way to get such a pointer. Paolo
