On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 10:50:57AM -0700, John Stultz wrote: > > I get the reasoning around reusing the fd we already have, but is > the possibility of a dynamic chardev pathname really a big concern?
I have been following this thread, and, not knowing very much about perf, I would think that the userland can easily open a second file (the dynamic posix clock chardev) in order to get these time stamps. > Maybe can we extend the dynamic posix clock code to work on more > then just the chardev? Although I worry about multiplexing too much > functionality on the file. I don't yet see a need for that, but if we do, then it should work in a generic way, and not as a list of special cases, like we saw in the patch. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/