On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 12:29:59PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I think Andy's suggestion of exposing time offsets instead > of absolute times would actually achieve that: If the > interface is changed to return the offset against > CLOCK_MONOTONIC, CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW or CLOCK_BOOTTIME > (not sure what is best here), then the new syscall can use > getcrosststamp() where supported for the best results or > fall back to gettimex64() or gettime64() otherwise to > provide a consistent user interface. Yes, it makes more sense to provide the offset, since that is what the user needs in the end. Can we change the name of the system call to "clock compare"? int clock_compare(clockid_t a, clockid_t b, int64_t *offset, int64_t *error); returns: zero or error code, offset = a - b error = maximum error due to asymmetry If clocks a and b are both System-V clocks, then *error=0 and *offset can be returned directly from the kernel's time keeping state. If getcrosststamp() is supported on a or b, then invoke it. otherwise do this: t1 = gettime(a) t2 = gettime(b) t3 - gettime(c) *offset = (t1 + t3)/2 - t2 *error = (t3 - t1)/2 There is no need for repeated measurement, since user space can call again when `error` is unacceptable. Thanks, Richard
