On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 10:07 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> I'm assuming that programmers will test their code, and others will
> review the code .. Catering to any other situation doesn't make sense to
> me. On top of that those clocks are rare, and not desirable ..
So what are you arguing about bu
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 18:55 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:39 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > please read my reply above! To repeat: such flags tend to get forgotten,
> > > resulting in a less safe default behavior. Clock hardware and thus
> > > clocksources are fundam
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 09:39 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > please read my reply above! To repeat: such flags tend to get forgotten,
> > resulting in a less safe default behavior. Clock hardware and thus
> > clocksources are fundamentally fragile so we want to default to the
> > safest behavior.
This patch modifies the current clocksource API so that clocks
can be masked if they have specific negative qualities. For
instance, if a clock is not atomic you can choose not to include
it in the list you select from, atomic in this case being lockless.
The following qualities can be masked o
4 matches
Mail list logo
