From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752604AbdI0Qry (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:47:54 -0400 Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:44568 "EHLO merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751878AbdI0Qrv (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:47:51 -0400 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 18:47:45 +0200 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Anna-Maria Gleixner , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , keescook@chromium.org, John Stultz Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/25] hrtimer: Enable soft and hard hrtimer Message-ID: <20170927164745.GK17526@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <20170831105725.809317030@linutronix.de> <20170831105826.997132802@linutronix.de> <20170926125206.63l6jlp76dhfu7um@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22.1 (2013-10-16) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 05:54:02PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > So why expose these extra bases at all, why not stick another flag in > > > MODE? These extra bases is a pure implementation detail imo; you could > > > equally implement the functionality without (albeit at extra cost). > > Right and that cost too high. Yes, no question about that. > > It was Thomas' request not to use a flag for this. > > We can make that a flag as well. There is no hard requirement for making it > a CLOCK. Peter is right that it's a pure internal implementation detail and > we can hide it from the outside world. Yeah, that was my point.