Re: [PATCH 2/5] time: pass flags instead of multiple bools to timekeeping_update()

[John Stultz]

On 06/27/2013 03:35 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
> From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Instead of passing multiple bools to timekeeping_updated(), define
> flags and use a single 'action' parameter.  It is then more obvious
> what each timekeeping_update() call does.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   kernel/time/timekeeping.c |   21 ++++++++++++---------
>   1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> index baeeb5c..7aed2b0 100644
> --- a/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> +++ b/kernel/time/timekeeping.c
> @@ -26,6 +26,9 @@
>   #include "tick-internal.h"
>   #include "ntp_internal.h"
>   
> +#define TK_CLEAR_NTP (1 << 0)
> +#define TK_MIRROR (1 << 1)
> +
>   static struct timekeeper timekeeper;
>   static DEFINE_RAW_SPINLOCK(timekeeper_lock);
>   static seqcount_t timekeeper_seq;
> @@ -241,16 +244,16 @@ int pvclock_gtod_unregister_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb)
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(pvclock_gtod_unregister_notifier);
>   
>   /* must hold timekeeper_lock */
> -static void timekeeping_update(struct timekeeper *tk, bool clearntp, bool mirror)
> +static void timekeeping_update(struct timekeeper *tk, unsigned action)

Nit: Mind making this "unsigned int" just for consistency sake with the 
rest of the code?

thanks
-john

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/