On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 00:15 +0200, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Wouldn't it be a good idea to change the comment following
> the code you removed as well?
>
> Why have a comment saying "multi socket systems" if there is no
> distinction anymore?
>
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > @@ -959,9 +959,6 @@ static __init int unsynchronized_tsc(voi
> > are handled in the OEM check above. */
> > if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> > return 0;
> > - /* All in a single socket - should be synchronized */
> > - if (cpus_weight(cpu_core_map[0]) == num_online_cpus())
> > - return 0;
> > #endif
> > /* Assume multi socket systems are not synchronized */
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > return num_online_cpus() > 1;
Yea, good point, that should probably be "SMP systems".
Do you want to send the patch to Andrew? :)
thanks
-john
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |