On Tue, Apr 02 2024 at 14:16, Mahesh Bandewar (महेश बंडेवार) wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 2:25 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Works as well. I'm not seing the point for CLOCK_MONOTONIC and the >> change logs are not really telling anything about the problem being >> solved.... >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240104212431.3275688-1-maheshb@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#:~:text=*%20[PATCHv3%20net%2Dnext%200/3]%20add%20ptp_gettimex64any()%20API,21:24%20Mahesh%20Bandewar%200%20siblings%2C%200%20replies; > > This is the cover letter where I tried to explain the need for this. The justification for a patch needs to be in the change log and not in the cover letter because the cover letter is not part of the git history. > Granted, my current use case is for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW but just > because I don't have a use case doesn't mean someone else may not have > it and hence added it. Then why did you not five other clock IDs? Someone else might have a use case, no? While a syscall/ioctl should be flexible for future use, the kernel does not add features just because there might be some use case. It's documented how this works. Thanks, tglx
