From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pythia.bakeyournoodle.com (pythia.bakeyournoodle.com [203.82.209.197]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AC93DDE0D for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:56:21 +1000 (EST) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:56:20 +1000 To: Milton Miller Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Implement {read,update}_persistent_clock. v2 Message-ID: <20070912045620.GI9814@bakeyournoodle.com> References: <20070911081746.GF9814@bakeyournoodle.com> <4d781cd1a4751e20098cae29aa4d2b60@bga.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In-Reply-To: <4d781cd1a4751e20098cae29aa4d2b60@bga.com> From: tony@bakeyournoodle.com (Tony Breeds) Cc: ppcdev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 09:34:13AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote: > Previously we called ppc_md.get_boot_time at most once. How about > moving the check for it into the if (first) block? Yup on investigatiion it looks like moving it inside the "if (fist)" is safe. > Have you tested with a platform that doesn't implement get_rtc_time? Well no I haven't. AFAICT without my patch read_persistent_clock() is a weak symbol that always returns 0. So any platform that doesn't have a ppc_md.get_boot_time() or ppc_md.get_rtc_time() will still get a 0 at all the call sites. I'll locate a machine and verify I'm not making things worse. Yours Tony linux.conf.au http://linux.conf.au/ || http://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Jan 28 - Feb 02 2008 The Australian Linux Technical Conference!