From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] xen/console: Traditional console timestamps including milliseconds Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 18:33:16 -0500 Message-ID: <531A573C.6050807@terremark.com> References: <1394134085-22952-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1394134085-22952-6-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <53190AB0.4020806@terremark.com> <531915C4.6060102@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <531915C4.6060102@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Keir Fraser , Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , Don Slutz , Xen-devel , Stefano Stabellini , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/06/14 19:41, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 06/03/2014 23:54, Don Slutz wrote: >> On 03/06/14 14:28, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> } >>> -struct tm wallclock_time(void) >>> +struct tm wallclock_time(uint64_t *ns) >>> { >> Adding: >> >> if ( ns ) >> *ns = 0; >> >> Makes sense here. >> >>> return (struct tm) { 0 }; >>> } >>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/time.c b/xen/arch/x86/time.c >>> index 4f4de22..1156ccc 100644 >>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c >>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c >>> @@ -1646,15 +1646,19 @@ int dom0_pit_access(struct ioreq *ioreq) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -struct tm wallclock_time(void) >>> +struct tm wallclock_time(uint64_t *ns) >>> { >>> - uint64_t seconds; >>> + uint64_t seconds, nsec; >>> if ( !wc_sec ) >> And here. >> >>> return (struct tm) { 0 }; >>> seconds = NOW() + SECONDS(wc_sec) + wc_nsec; >>> - do_div(seconds, 1000000000); >>> + nsec = do_div(seconds, 1000000000); >>> + >>> + if ( *ns ) >> This should be just >> >> if ( ns ) > Oops - so it should. > > As for the other changes, I am a bit ambivalent. printk_start_of_line() > is the sole caller of wallclock_time(), which means that tm.tm_day being > 0 means *ns will never get looked at. This is not 100% true. Last I knew (struct tm) { 0 } is struct tm { int tm_sec; /* seconds */ = 0 int tm_min; /* minutes */ int tm_hour; /* hours */ int tm_mday; /* day of the month */ int tm_mon; /* month */ int tm_year; /* year */ int tm_wday; /* day of the week */ int tm_yday; /* day in the year */ int tm_isdst; /* daylight saving time */ }; But not having looked at the code, and the compilers could have changed what this means (i.e. if not provided they are zero in which case this should be {}. { 0, 0, 0, 0 } or { .tm_mday = 0 } is the way I know of to say "tm_mday" is zero). So the test for tm.tm_mday == 0 may just be working because the undefined value is zero... > While it is not exactly a hot codepath, unconditionally clearing it > seems silly, especially as it is not exactly the most likely candidate > to get a new caller in the near future. There is no clear right answer here. So I have no issue with not doing the "extra" work. -Don Slutz > ~Andrew >