[PATCH 0/5] v2: Progress toward absolute time intervals

Pavel Pisa ppisa4lists at pikron.com
Tue Jul 19 15:18:35 UTC 2016

Hello Sebastian,

thanks for the comments

On Tuesday 19 of July 2016 11:48:07 Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Pavel,
> On 14/07/16 15:04, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> > The overflow of 64-bit ticks and 34 bit for seconds packed timespec
> > format is not probable but I would like to see support for infinite
> > operation there even if it cost halving range of the most distant
> > timeouts.
> with the 34-bits for seconds, we have a year 2514 problem. The 64-bit
> ticks counter overflows with a 1ns tick interval in about 586 years. So,
> nothing to worry about from my point of view.

I agree that it is not practically required.

Please, can you clarify, if packed timespec format
is used for both queues


(my initial reading is that they use different
encoding) and if PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_RELATIVE can be
considered as CLOCK_MONOTONIC and real time clocks
corrections go only to PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_ABSOLUTE.

Best wishes,


PS: have you some remarks to my cache and RPI series
    or it can be pushes.

More information about the devel mailing list