svn commit: r210054 - in head/sys: conf kern x86/x86

[Alexander Motin]

John Baldwin wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 1:01:14 pm Alexander Motin wrote:
>> John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 11:59:46 am Alexander Motin wrote:
>>>> John Baldwin wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, July 14, 2010 9:31:27 am Alexander Motin wrote:
>>>>>> Author: mav
>>>>>> Date: Wed Jul 14 13:31:27 2010
>>>>>> New Revision: 210054
>>>>>> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/210054
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Log:
>>>>>>   Move timeevents.c to MI code, as it is not x86-specific. I already have
>>>>>>   it working on Marvell ARM SoCs, and it would be nice to unify timer 
>>> code
>>>>>>   between more platforms.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Added:
>>>>>>   head/sys/kern/timeevents.c
>>>>>>      - copied unchanged from r210053, head/sys/x86/x86/timeevents.c
>>>>>> Deleted:
>>>>>>   head/sys/x86/x86/timeevents.c
>>>>>> Modified:
>>>>>>   head/sys/conf/files.amd64
>>>>>>   head/sys/conf/files.i386
>>>>>>   head/sys/conf/files.pc98
>>>>> Can this be merged with kern_et.c, 
>>>> They are different. kern_et.c provides event timer drivers API,
>>>> timeevents.c consumes it to manage kernel clocks. kern_et.c
>>>> theoretically can be used without timeevents.c if some other code
>>>> consume timers, for example, exposing them to user-level.
>>>>
>>>> May be names indeed cryptic a bit, but I had no better ideas.
>>>>
>>>>> or perhaps called subr_eventtimers.c instead?
>>>> Whatever you like, but why exactly so and why "subr_" important?
>>> The vast majority of files in sys/kern use some sort of prefix, either sys_*, 
>>> kern_*, subr_*, etc.  subr_ was just a suggestion to avoid clashing with 
>>> kern_et.c.  If timeevents.c is specific to clocks then maybe it should have 
>>> 'clock' in its name somehow?  Right now having kern_et == kern_eventtimer.c 
>>> and timeevents.c is a bit ambiguous.  Somehow making it clear that 
>>> timeevents.c is for clocks might help.
>> We already have kern_clock.c and subr_clock.c. kern_clock.c is quite
>> close by meaning. What's about kern_clocksource.c?
> 
> Ok.  I assume it would not be easy to just merge this file into kern_clock.c
> itself?

At least not until all architectures will adapt to it.

-- 
Alexander Motin