On Tuesday 04 November 2014 11:49:04 Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 4 Nov 2014, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 09:01:31AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 03 November 2014 17:11:53 John Stultz wrote: > > > > I've got some thoughts on what a possible interface that wouldn't be > > > > awful could look like, but I'm still hesitant because I don't really > > > > know if exposing this sort of data is actually a good idea long term. > > > > > > I was also thinking (while working on an unrelated patch) we could use > > > a system call like > > > > > > int clock_getoffset(clockid_t clkid, struct timespec *offs); > > We might make *offs a timespec64 or u64 I don't think we are ready yet to introduce timespec64 in the uapi headers, this needs some more careful planning. Otherwise I agree it's bad to introduce syscalls that we already know will become obsolete soon. Arnd -- 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
