On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Genki Sky wrote: > Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news :(.
No problem. We're not shooting the messengers > Again, I just have my user hat on here. It does seem like this unifying > would have been nice to have. And even, more compliant with the POSIX > definition of MONOTONIC... Yes, that was the idea > On that note, maybe it is still worth introducing MONOTONIC_ACTIVE, > but just as an alias for MONOTONIC for now. It's also more > self-documenting. Then sometime in the future, if people switch over, > remove BOOTTIME and make MONOTONIC like BOOTTIME. Though this doesn't > help simplify the code, I know. It doesn't and it does not make applications magically make use of MONOTONIC_ACTIVE. We're in a trap here..... Thanks, tglx