[PATCH] use CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer instead of CLOCK_MONOTONIC in Xorg

[ykzhao]

On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 17:55 +0800, Pauli Nieminen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:48 AM, ykzhao <yakui.zhao at intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 17:02 +0800, Mikhail Gusarov wrote:
> >> Twas brillig at 16:45:34 24.08.2010 UTC+08 when yakui.zhao at intel.com did gyre and gimble:
> >>
> >>  y> What side effect will it bring if we define it explicitly and use it
> >>  y> when it is not defined in system header?
> >>
> >> Bad side-effect is X.org becoming OS again :) It isn't hard to require
> >> newer linux-libc-dev headers for CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE definition.
> >
> > How about limiting it to linux platform as mentioned by Samuel
> > Thibault?
> >
> > The change of this patch happens in the file of os/utils.c, which has
> > the dependency on the OS. Not sure whether it will be too strict that
> > the glibc header file needs to be updated in order to use the
> > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer.
> >
> > Now some latest linux distribution already adds the definition of
> > CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE. But on the previous distribution, the user still
> > can enjoy the benefit of using CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE posix timer after
> > updating the linux kernel while the gcc tool doesn't need to be updated.
> >
> 
> That use case is very unlikely to happen excluding developers. Nearly
> everyone else will be using this patch in system with new enough
> headers that do define CLOCK_MONOTIC_COARSE.

Thanks for the comments.
OK. I will limit it to linux platform and won't create it if it is not
defined in header file.

Thanks.
   Yakui
> 
> > Thanks.
> >   yakui
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel