Re: + clocksource-driver-initialize-list-value.patch added to -mm tree

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 23:34 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
> > > but why do you call that a simplification? Remove 5 lines of code 
> > > from the generic code, by adding +1 line to every clocksource 
> > > driver, totalling to like +20 lines at the moment?
> > 
> > I guess I don't look at it in terms of lines .. Why do you think 
> > reciting a line count diminishes the "simplification" claim? The 20+ 
> > lines that I added to each clocksource don't have a size or runtime 
> > effect ..
> 
> but they have a robustness and maintainability effect. Key is to keep 
> drivers _simple_ and hard to mess up. If it's 5 extra lines of code to 
> simplify a driver then we just do it. This is maintainance 101.
> 
> i cannot believe you are still arguing this. I explained this to you 
> many weeks ago!

I vaguely remember, but I don't think this creates a maintenance
issue .. It's not related to maintenance , it's an issue of creating a
new clocksource .. My perspective is that it has even less an effect
than the CLOCK_SOURCE_IS_CONTINUOUS field .. People actually have to
research that field, but list initialization is fairly clear.

The majority method for creating these clocksources is copy&paste, so
I'm not sure nano argument on this subject particularly relevant ..

Daniel