On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 4:58 PM Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > I care less about these since ktime_get_real_fast_ns() already > exists. My preference would be leaving alons the _fast_ns() > functions for now, but making everything else consistent instead. > > Thomas created the _fast_ns() accessors with a specific application > in mind, and I suppose we don't really want them to be used much > beyond that. I wonder if we should try to come up with a better > name instead of "fast" that makes the purpose clearer and does > not suggest that it's faster to read than the "coarse" version.
Oh shoot, I just submitted v3 having not seen this. Does v3's 4/4 look fine, or shall I undo the _fast switcheroo and resubmit? Jason
