Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 17:24:42 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> To: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Prepend timestamp in msgbuf Message-ID: <CAGH67wTojGdaAyZaX%2BZp9TLnmY7ibUVUx0sW-yz2Uxt3wjAf9A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CACqU3MVy1hwmz-eSiR=FTGKmzeZ6EFwudpKLYOZW1K-HdPttZg@mail.gmail.com> References: <1318884099-6005-1-git-send-email-lacombar@gmail.com> <20111017221933.GZ91943@hoeg.nl> <20111017222259.GA91943@hoeg.nl> <CACqU3MVy1hwmz-eSiR=FTGKmzeZ6EFwudpKLYOZW1K-HdPttZg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl> wrote: >> Ah, missed something. >> >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 getnanouptime(&ts); >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 err =3D snprintf(buf, sizeof buf, "[%zd.%.6ld= ] ", >>> + =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 ts.tv_sec, ts.tv_nsec / 1000); >> >> It seems we also have a getmicrouptime(), which returns a struct >> timeval. > fixed. > >> Also a more general question: is it actually safe to call >> getnanouptime() here? This code gets executed from an arbitrary context, >> right? >> > right, but getmicrouptime() is not doing much magic. Just reading a > cached value, do an arithmetic conversion. I do not really see any > unsafe part. Based on glancing around other areas of the kernel, I'd assume that using this KPI as-is is fine because I don't see any locking employed elsewhere... -Garrett
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGH67wTojGdaAyZaX%2BZp9TLnmY7ibUVUx0sW-yz2Uxt3wjAf9A>