On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 17:27 +0100, Roman Zippel wrote: > On Wednesday 20 December 2006 02:32, john stultz wrote: > > > > I know and all you have to change in the ntp and some related code is to > > > replace HZ there with a variable, thus make it changable, so you can > > > increase the update interval (i.e. it becomes 1s/hz instead of 1s/HZ). > > > > Untested patch below. Does this vibe better with you are suggesting? > > Yes, thanks. > tick_nsec doesn't require special treatment, in the middle term it's obsolete > anyway, it could be replaced with (current_tick_length() >> > TICK_LENGTH_SHIFT) and current_tick_length() being inlined.
If NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ is different then HZ, then tick_nsec still has a different meaning then (current_tick_length() >> TICK_LENGTH_SHIFT). So since tick_nsec is still used in quite a few places, so I'm hesitant to pull it. > NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ could be a real variable (so it can be initialized at > runtime), it's already gone from all important paths. Wait, so you're suggesting NTP_INTERVAL_FREQ be a dynamic variable instead of a constant? Curious, could you give a bit more detail on why? > In the short term I'd prefered a clock would store its frequency instead of > using NTP_INTERVAL_LENGTH in clocksource_calculate_interval(), so it doesn't > has to be derived there. I don't follow this at all. clocksources do store their own frequency (via mult/shift). Could you explain? thanks -john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
