Re: [PATCH 1/8] posix clocks: introduce a syscall for clock tuning.

[john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 09:29 +0200, Richard Cochran wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 12:48:51PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> > So I'd still split this patch up a little bit more.
> > 
> > 1) Patch that implements the ADJ_SETOFFSET  (*and its implementation*)
> > in do_adjtimex.
> > 
> > 2) Patch that adds the new syscall and clock_id multiplexing.
> > 
> > 3) Patches that wire it up to the rest of the architectures (there's
> > still a bunch missing here).
> 
> I was not sure what the policy is about adding syscalls. Is it the
> syscall author's responsibility to add it into every arch?
> 
> The last time (see a2e2725541fad7) the commit only added half of some
> archs, and ignored others. In my patch, the syscall *really* works on
> the archs that are present in the patch.
> 
> (Actually, I did not test blackfin, since I don't have one, but I
> included it since I know they have a PTP hardware clock.)

I'm not sure about policy, but I think for completeness sake you should
make sure every arch supports a new syscall. You're not expected to be
able to test every one, but getting the basic support patch sent to
maintainers should be done.

> > > +static inline int common_clock_adj(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timex *t)
> > > +{
> > > +	if (CLOCK_REALTIME == which_clock)
> > > +		return do_adjtimex(t);
> > > +	else
> > > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > > +}
> > 
> > 
> > Would it make sense to point to the do_adjtimex() in the k_clock
> > definition for CLOCK_REALTIME rather then conditionalizing it here?
> 
> But what about CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW, for example?

-EOPNOTSUPP

> Does it make sense to allow it to be adjusted?

No. I think only CLOCK_REALTIME would make sense of the existing clocks.

I'm just suggesting you conditionalize it from the function pointer,
rather then in the common function.

thanks
-john