On Fri, 14 Jan 2011, Richard Cochran wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 06:03:24PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Jan 2011, Richard Cochran wrote: > > > int posix_cpu_clock_getres(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec > > > *ts); > > > int posix_cpu_clock_get(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec > > > *ts); > > > -int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, const struct > > > timespec *ts); > > > +int posix_cpu_clock_set(const clockid_t which_clock, struct timespec > > > *ts); > > > > Shouldn't we change the clock_set function to have *ts const in all places ? > > Yes, your are right. > > > > @@ -293,6 +261,11 @@ static __init int init_posix_timers(void) > > > .clock_adj = do_posix_clock_noadjtime, > > > .timer_create = no_timer_create, > > > .nsleep = no_nsleep, > > > + /* defaults: */ > > > + .nsleep_restart = common_nsleep_restart, > > > + .timer_del = common_timer_del, > > > + .timer_get = common_timer_get, > > > + .timer_set = common_timer_set, > > > > Hmm, we do not need to set functional entries for clocks which neither > > implement timer_create nor nsleep. > > I know, but I wanted to be really pendantic about what the previous > code was, and what the new code does. > > Before: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock > selects common_xyz. This common function may or may make > sense for that clock. > > After: By leaving the k_clock function pointer NULL, the clock will > return EINVAL for that syscall. > > Maybe it would be better to leave the cleaning up of the common crud > as a follow up patch. What do you think?
Fair enough. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
