Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.20

[Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi,

On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Andrew Morton wrote:

> > IMO it least at needs one more iteration to address the comments that 
> > were made (not just mine), in the short term the less it touches 
> > unconditionally the less I care right now.
> 
> I don't have a clue which review comments remain unaddressed - do you recall?

Outside clockevents I'd like to see at least the flag handling fixed 
before it gets merged.
Inside clockevents I could poke around forever...

> > In the long term IMO this might need a major rework, the basic problem I 
> > have is that I don't see how this usable beyond dynticks/hrtimer, e.g. how 
> > to dynamically manage multiple timer.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand that.  Are you referring to multiple,
> concurrently-operating hardware clock sources?  <wonders how that could
> work> If so, that's more a clocksource thing than a dynticks/hrtimer thing,
> isn't it?

A rather simple example would be profiling, where a separate timer is 
useful to see stuff that runs from the main timer, which is currently 
invisible.
It's insofar a clocksource thing as clock source and clock events should 
form a union, currently it's separate and that's a big problem. It's not 
really problem to have multiple clock sources and they don't really have 
to be synchronized with each other, but events _are_ connected to the 
source they are coming from.
In the end we could even expose multiple clocks via the posix clock/timer 
interface, but with the current design I don't see how this is possible.

bye, Roman