From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755551Ab2LNBUl (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:20:41 -0500 Received: from mail-ia0-f174.google.com ([209.85.210.174]:55279 "EHLO mail-ia0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753084Ab2LNBUk (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:20:40 -0500 Message-ID: <50CA7EE4.3000306@linaro.org> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 17:20:36 -0800 From: John Stultz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Feng Tang CC: Thomas Gleixner , Alessandro Zummo , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, alek.du@intel.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] timekeeping: Add persistent_clock_exist flag References: <1355364328-19550-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <1355364328-19550-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/12/2012 06:05 PM, Feng Tang wrote: > In current kernel, there are several places which need to check > whether there is a persistent clock for the platform. Current check > is done by calling the read_persistent_clock() and validating the > return value. > > Add such a flag to make code more readable and call read_persistent_clock() > only once for all the checks. Sorry.. What the actual benefit of this patch set? (Usually with changelogs its better to explain why you're doing something, rather then just what you're doing.) Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems this doesn't change the resulting logic of the code, does it? As I thought we already check read_persistent_clocks() output (and make sure its null) before using the rtc HCTOSYS_DEVICE. thanks -john