Hi, Ralf This patch is not applicable, please ignore it! Thanks! Wu Zhangjin On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:45 -0800, David Daney wrote: > On 11/26/2009 07:05 PM, Wu Zhangjin wrote: > > On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 21:15 +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > [...] > >>> > >>> I don't think this is really good name for this file (one might think > >>> that this is another implementation of clocksource instead of some > >>> sched_clock() code tied to this particular clocksource), and I don't > >>> > >> Seriously, if this file have to live a life of its own, name it like > >> sched-r4k.c but not the way you named it -- this is not another clocksource > >> module... > >> > >> > > Hello, Sergei Shtylyov, I will use hres_sched_clock.c instead of > > sched-r4k.c, is it okay? > > > > Hi, Ralf, which one will you apply? If hres_sched_clock.c is okay, I > > will resend it asap. > > > > Like Sergei, I think putting this in a seperate file is a bad idea. > This sched_clock is just a slightly different view of the csrc-r4k.c > put it in there. > > Octeon has its own clock source (cavium-octeon/scrc-octeon.c) and > doesn't use csrc-r4k, so if you put it in a seperate file, there will > have to be makefile hackery to keep this thing out of an octeon kernel. > > When and if you add this to csrc-r4k, I will submit the patch (already > written) that adds a high resolution sched_clock() to csrc-octeon.c. > > Thanks, > David Daney > > > >
