On Wed, 2009-01-21 at 10:33 +0000, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Currently only mapping from time counter to system time is implemented. > > The interface could have been made more versatile by not depending on a time counter, > > but this wasn't done to avoid writing glue code elsewhere. > > > > The method implemented here is the one used and analyzed under the name > > "assisted PTP" in the LCI PTP paper: > > http://www.linuxclustersinstitute.org/conferences/archive/2008/PDF/Ohly_92221.pdf > > --- > > include/linux/clocksync.h | 85 +++++++++++++++++++ > > kernel/time/Makefile | 2 +- > > kernel/time/clocksync.c | 196 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 282 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 include/linux/clocksync.h > > create mode 100644 kernel/time/clocksync.c > > hm, these bits have less than casual impact - i think they need to go via > the timer tree. I agree that they should be reviewed by experts in that area. Patch 11 and 09 (which 11 depends on and which was already reviewed by John) are independent of the rest of the patch series and could be included in the timer tree. On the other hand that code is only called by the example igb driver in this patch series, which won't compile without the timer changes. Please let me know if I should pursue the inclusion separately and if so, how the inclusion of the two trees can be coordinated. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
