Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/time: refactor init_platform_time()

From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@oracle.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>,
	xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] x86/time: refactor init_platform_time()
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 04:09:41 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5703AB0502000078000E31B7@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1459259051-4943-3-git-send-email-joao.m.martins@oracle.com>

>>> On 29.03.16 at 15:44, <joao.m.martins@oracle.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> @@ -533,6 +533,30 @@ static void resume_platform_timer(void)
>      plt_stamp = plt_src.read_counter();
>  }
>  
> +static int __init try_platform_timer(struct platform_timesource *pts)
> +{
> +    int rc = -1;

Pointless initializer. In fact ...

> +    rc = pts->init(pts);

... this could be the initializer.

> +    if ( rc <= 0 )
> +        return rc;
> +
> +    plt_mask = (u64)~0ull >> (64 - pts->counter_bits);
> +
> +    set_time_scale(&plt_scale, pts->frequency);
> +
> +    plt_overflow_period = scale_delta(
> +        1ull << (pts->counter_bits - 1), &plt_scale);
> +    init_timer(&plt_overflow_timer, plt_overflow, NULL, 0);
> +    plt_src = *pts;
> +    plt_overflow(NULL);
> +
> +    platform_timer_stamp = plt_stamp64;
> +    stime_platform_stamp = NOW();
> +
> +    return rc;
> +}

Moving here all this setting up of static/global data makes me
wonder how you mean to consistently re-use this function for
your new purpose.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel