On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 20:38 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > you are also misunderstanding the change. While the TSC is the only
> > > unstable clocksource right now, the previous code tied the TSC to
> > > the >pm-timer< clocksource. This change makes it generic, hence the
> > > TSC can be verified by a hpet-only system (no pm-timer) as well.
> > > Systems without a pm-timer and with a TSC are quite common. So it
> > > solves a real problem.
> >
> > Using my patch set a TSC specific watchdog could be created that isn't
> > tied a another specific clock. [...]
>
> in other words: Thomas was right with his approach and your criticism
> against the generic code was unjustified. (I agree with the other points
> of Thomas as well, so i'm going with his patchset for now.)
I think his approach was wrong that's why I'm resistant to his
implementation .. However, if he _demands_ to verify the TSC my patchset
provides the functionality to allow him to do it in a _clean_ manner
which meets the constraints that you and he have provided.
Daniel
-
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]
