On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Luck, Tony <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:43:19AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >> > Sorry, I've been a bad maintainer. I'm travelling internationally this week >> > but I will take a look at your proposed patch next week. >> >> I feel the same way, often :) >> >> Thanks for checking it out. I'll hold off on pushing the break to 4.15 >> but will queue it up for 4.16. > > Well this would have been a whole lot easier if I had taken your > proto-patch three years ago. It seems that almost all the fields of > "struct timekeeper" changed since then! Apologies! > Here's what I'm running tests with. If you could run an eye over it to > make sure I didn't do something odd or miss something when cut&pasting > code from arch/x86 I'd appreciate it. > > The new "struct time_sn_spec" is to keep the secs/snsecs bundled at > known offsets from each other to preserve more of the assembly code > ... otherwise I'd have had to find another scratch register to save > the offset of the snsecs separately from the offset of the secs (or put > flashing tag comments in the header file to say that snsecs must stay > right after secs). >From the quick skim it looks sane to me. I'd recommend running the kselftest/timers tests to help validate what you have. Be sure to use the "make run_destructive_tests" variant, as folks often miss that one. (And make sure you have ntpd/chrony/systemd-timesync turned off while the tests are running) thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|