Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails.

[ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)]

Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:

> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 02:45:00PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>> Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> writes:
>
> We just got a completely different bug reported that was confirmed to be 
> caused by Andi's patch:
>    AMD64/ATI : timer is running twice as fast as it should [1]

Odd. I didn't think Andi's code worked well enough that we could hit
anything but the default trust the BIOS case.  I guess someone had
the right hardware to perform that miracle.

>> I really don't care how we do it, or in what timeframe.  But what I have
>> posted is the only way I can see of making it better, than what we had
>> in 2.6.19.
>>...
>
> My whole point is that for 2.6.20, we can live with simply reverting 
> Andi's commit.
>
> What to do for 2.6.21 is a completely different story.

That is where I figured we were when we first hit this bug.

I have always found the ways of stable tree maintainers to be
mysterious.  Sometimes holding back code with minimal risk sometimes
insisting we cleanup things instead of reverting things.

So I have just decided to write the code and let other people figure
out when it should be merged :)  And of course when my code has
problems to address them.

Eric
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/