On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:56:22 -0700
john stultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew: While clearly there is the deeper issue of why interrupts are
> enabled before they should be, I may still like to push the two-liner
> above, since its a bit safer should someone accidentally enable
> interrupts early again. Looking back in my patch history it was
> previously in the order above until I switched it (I suspect
> accidentally) in the C0 rework.
>
> I also added a warning message so we can still detect the problem w/o
> hanging.
>
> Does the patch below look reasonable?
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <[email protected]>
>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index b2f3b56..2984d16 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -496,8 +496,8 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void
> init_timers();
> hrtimers_init();
> softirq_init();
> - time_init();
> timekeeping_init();
> + time_init();
>
I looked at doing this and there appeared to be interdependencies between
these two functions. In that timekeeping_init()'s behaviour would be
different if time_init() hadn't run yet.
So are you really really sure?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
