On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 09:48:57AM +0200, Richard Cochran wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 02:19:24PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > > Also given many other syscalls take clockids and the backing logic > > > isn't really getting removed (probably could cut the dynamic posix > > > clocks core with the same conditional), I wonder if you could get a > > > similar size win by taking a slightly more narrow cutting of the > > > subsystem. That way you could preserve the more useful clock_gettime() > > > functionality, but maybe stub out some of the less often used > > > functionality. > > > > I want to support tinification, but I also doubt the utility of > > removing clock_gettime() and clock_nanosleep(). I can't imagine ever > > building a user space without those. In fact, thinking about IoT, > > having good time is critical, and so these are the *last* functions I > > would remove when downsizing. > > 1) If you already have another function providing time and don't need two.
Agreed. > 2) If you run an entirely event-driven loop and don't sleep. I hope you wanted to say: and don't use *nanosleep() :) Otherwise you'd have a full busy polling event loop which I doubt is desirable ... Thanks, tglx