Re: Patch 3/3: Reduce number of get_cmos_time_calls.

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

Hi!

> Create new __get_cmos_time patch, which doesn't wait for the start of a
> new second before returning. Adjust timer_suspend to use this as we
> don't appear to need the exact start of a second when suspending.

Basically nice cleanup. I do not know if this does not mean up-to
second error in clock for each suspend/resume?

> --- 913-old/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c	2004-12-10 14:27:08.000000000 +1100
> +++ 913-new/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c	2005-01-08 19:39:24.664278320 +1100
> @@ -499,11 +499,56 @@ unsigned long long sched_clock(void)
>  	return cycles_2_ns(a);
>  }
>  
> +unsigned long __get_cmos_time(void)
> +{

Missing static?

> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Do we need the spinlock in here too?
> +	 *
> +	 * If we're called directly (not via get_cmos_time),
> +	 * we're in the middle of a sysdev suspend/resume
> +	 * and interrupts are disabled, so this 
> +	 * should be safe without any locking.
> +	 * 				-- NC
> +	 */

I'd say "Caller is responsible for locking"... and explain this in
caller. Also do not sign comments.

> +	do {
> +		sec = CMOS_READ(RTC_SECONDS);
> +		min = CMOS_READ(RTC_MINUTES);
> +		hour = CMOS_READ(RTC_HOURS);
> +		day = CMOS_READ(RTC_DAY_OF_MONTH);
> +		mon = CMOS_READ(RTC_MONTH);
> +		year = CMOS_READ(RTC_YEAR);
> +	} while (sec != CMOS_READ(RTC_SECONDS));
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We know that x86-64 always uses BCD format, no need to check the config
> +	 * register.
> +	 */
> +
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(sec);
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(min);
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(hour);
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(day);
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(mon);
> +	    BCD_TO_BIN(year);

Whitespace damage?
								Pavel
-- 
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!