On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, john stultz wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 12:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > But what I see is an approach which tries to implement disconnected > > special purpose clocks which have the ability to be adjusted > > independently. What's the purpose of this ? Why can't we just use the > > existing clocks and make PTP work on them ? > > So this too was my initial gut response. It seems ridiculous to expose > two clock_ids (CLOCK_REALTIME and CLOCK_PTP)that conceptually represent > the same thing (ie: number of seconds,nanoseconds since 1970). > > It doesn't help that one of the use cases that Richard suggests is "for > example in an embedded control application. The userland software can > simply ignore the wrong system time." > > As someone who's spent a *lot* of time trying to fix the "wrong system > time" these use cases reek of work-around solutions instead of properly > fixing whatever keeps the system time from being accurately sycned. > > However, as I've worked on understanding the issue, I realize that there > is some validity to needing to expose more then one hardware clock the > conceptually is the same as CLOCK_REALTIME. And that most of my gut > reaction to this was me being a bit oversensitive. :) Yup. It still scares me that we might end up with a dozen different notions of ONE second elapsed on the same machine :) > However, since there may be multiple PTP clocks or audio clocks or > whatever, allocating static clockids for each type isn't quite useful, Yeah, I corrected myself on that one, but I really want to see some confinement into well defined clock classes rather than the "hooray here is my clock of the day" approach. Thanks, tglx -- 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