From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com (Stefano Stabellini)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 11:51:26 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/7] timekeeping: introduce __current_kernel_time64
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511101046420.3915@nanos>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511101131350.5676@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
 <1447156675-7418-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
 <4372800.FdTygmcuyo@wuerfel>
 <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511101507540.5676@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
 <CALAqxLUEOWP6CJxY021nDR6cEQf3VZtm8fa9waK2a=OmQJEO-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511101028320.3915@nanos>
 <CALAqxLU35iSG8dCgkKi9v_mM=xO1p1jWAhq3nX6_CAYcjUYoZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1511101046420.3915@nanos>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511101656330.5676@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2015, John Stultz wrote:
> > I'm sort of objecting to a different issue, where the
> > __current_kernel_time() implementation probably shouldn't be grabbing
> > the tk_core.timekeeper directly, and instead should take a passed
> > pointer to a timekeeper. The vdso/pv_clock usage should have a
> > timekeeper passed to them that they could use.
> 
> That usage of __current_kernel_time() in that xen notifier is silly to
> begin with. The notifier gets already called with a pointer to the
> time keeper. That xen implementation just does not use it.
>
> We extract exactly that information in the vdso updates without
> calling back into the core code. So for solving that xen thing we do
> not need a 64 bit variant of __current_kernel_time() at all. The
> notifier has the pointer to the timekeeper and can just grab data from
> there.

Many thanks for the suggestion, I'll do that.
Should I open code tk_xtime in the xen notifier, or should I export it
in timekeeper_internal.h?