On 08/21/2017 05:31 AM, Karel Zak wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 08:23:01PM -0400, J William Piggott wrote: >> >> Signed-off-by: J William Piggott <elseifthen@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> sys-utils/hwclock.c | 24 +++++++++--------------- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/sys-utils/hwclock.c b/sys-utils/hwclock.c >> index c398d60..4279931 100644 >> --- a/sys-utils/hwclock.c >> +++ b/sys-utils/hwclock.c >> @@ -601,12 +601,8 @@ display_time(struct timeval hwctime) >> * * only on first call after boot >> */ >> static int >> -set_system_clock(const struct hwclock_control *ctl, >> - const struct timeval newtime) >> +kernel_time_ctl(const struct hwclock_control *ctl, const struct timeval newtime) > > Hmm... the new name does not make the code more readable for me. > > We have "HW-clock" (hc) and "system time", would be nice to keep > this terminology for functions names too? I've been moving away from the term 'Hardware Clock' in favor of RTC because: * use of /dev/rtcN is the only recommended access now * RTC seems more common (anecdotal observation) * it is more concise for usage() and docs Some people do not like the term "Real Time Clock", but I have not seen a consensus for any name. > > IMHO set_system_clock() is not so bad :-) (Maybe use system_set_clock() > if you want to use "system_" prefix for more functions.) My thinking was that this function does important things besides setting the system time. It also sets the kernel's RTC timescale and the kernel's timezone. For systz it never sets the system time at all. So the current name seems misleading. It doesn't matter to me, I was changing it to help others. Do you want me to put it back to set_system_clock? > > Karel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
