On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:45 PM Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
> I would prefer the 'coarse' on the other side, i.e.
> ktime_get_coarse_real_ns instead of ktime_get_real_coarse_ns,
> as this is what we already have with ktime_get_coarse_real_ts64.
>
> I originally went with that order to avoid the function sounding
> "real coarse", although I have to admit that it was before Thomas
> fixed it in e3ff9c3678b4 ("timekeeping: Repair ktime_get_coarse*()
> granularity"). ;-)I can do this, but that means also I'll change get_real_fast to get_fast_real, too, in order to be consistent. Is that okay?
