On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 16:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 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 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?
timekeeping_init() is pretty straight forward:
write_seqlock_irqsave(&xtime_lock, flags);
clock = clocksource_get_next();
clocksource_calculate_interval(clock, tick_nsec);
clock->cycle_last = clocksource_read(clock);
ntp_clear();
write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&xtime_lock, flags);
We initialize the clock value and call ntp_clear. The jiffies
clocksource will be used to start - other clocksources will be selected
as they become available.
Just to be sure, which inter-dependencies where you're thinking of?
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
