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

[Sebastian Huber]

On 19/07/16 17:18, Pavel Pisa wrote:
> 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
>
>    PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_RELATIVE,

No, the PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_RELATIVE use a 64-bit ticks value.

>    PER_CPU_WATCHDOG_ABSOLUTE,
>
> (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,
>
>                Pavel
>
> PS: have you some remarks to my cache and RPI series
>      or it can be pushes.

I move currently to a new house and I am only sporadically available. If 
you don't hear something within three work days in general, then please 
go ahead and commit whatever you think is best. I things break, then we 
can fix it.

-- 
Sebastian Huber, embedded brains GmbH

Address : Dornierstr. 4, D-82178 Puchheim, Germany
Phone   : +49 89 189 47 41-16
Fax     : +49 89 189 47 41-09
E-Mail  : sebastian.huber at embedded-brains.de
PGP     : Public key available on request.

Diese Nachricht ist keine geschäftliche Mitteilung im Sinne des EHUG.