From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: john stultz Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:15:40 +0000 Subject: Re: gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the Message-Id: <1089839740.1388.230.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> List-Id: References: <1089835776.1388.216.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Christoph Lameter Cc: lkml , ia64 On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:28, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > None the less, I do understand the desire for the change (and am working > > to address it in 2.7), so could you at least use a better name then > > gettimeofday()? Maybe get_ns_time() or something? Its just too similar > > to do_gettimeofday and the syscall gettimeofday(). > > Right. I had it named getnstimeofday before but the feeling was that the > patch should not introduce a new name. Any approach that would allow > progress on the issue would be fine with me. Fair enough. getnstimeofday() sounds good enough for me. > > Really, I feel the cleaner method is to fix do_gettimeofday() so it > > returns a timespec and then convert it to a timeval in > > sys_gettimeofday(). However this would add overhead to the syscall, so I > > doubt folks would go for it. > > do_gettimeofday is used all over the linux kernel for a variety of > purposes and lots of code depends on the presence of a timeval struct. Indeed, it would be a decent amount of work to clean that up as well. thanks -john