@@ -131,11 +131,11 @@ static int timekeeping_overflow_seen;
/* last_warning is only modified under the timekeeping lock */
static long timekeeping_last_warning;
-static void timekeeping_check_update(struct timekeeper *tk, cycle_t offset)
+static void timekeeping_check_update(struct tk_read_base *tkr, cycle_t offset)
{
- cycle_t max_cycles = tk->tkr_mono.clock->max_cycles;
- const char *name = tk->tkr_mono.clock->name;
+ cycle_t max_cycles = tkr->clock->max_cycles;
+ const char *name = tkr->clock->name;
if (offset > max_cycles) {
printk_deferred("WARNING: timekeeping: Cycle offset (%lld) is larger than allowed by the '%s' clock's max_cycles value (%lld): time overflow danger\n",
@@ -210,7 +210,7 @@ static inline cycle_t timekeeping_get_delta(struct tk_read_base *tkr)
return delta;
}
#else
-static inline void timekeeping_check_update(struct timekeeper *tk, cycle_t offset)
+static inline void timekeeping_check_update(struct tk_read_base *tkr, cycle_t offset)
{
}
static inline cycle_t timekeeping_get_delta(struct tk_read_base *tkr)
@@ -1794,7 +1794,7 @@ void update_wall_time(void)
goto out;
/* Do some additional sanity checking */
- timekeeping_check_update(real_tk, offset);
+ timekeeping_check_update(&real_tk->tkr_mono, offset);
/*
* With NO_HZ we may have to accumulate many cycle_intervals
Ingo noted there was no reason to pass the timekeeper structure to timekeeping_check_update(), and the tk_read_base would be fine, which simplifies the amount of dereferencing to get to values we care about. So this patch simply changes the function as suggested. Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> --- kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)