* Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 00:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Daniel Walker <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 23:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > > changing the current 'timer' entry (which is line 2 of /proc/interrupts)
> > > > to be 'listed as lapic-timer' and to 'replace it with the count from
> > > > LOC' is faking a count in a line where nothing like that should be.
> > >
> > > This point is getting irrelevant ..
> >
> > it is very much relevant: faking a count is something we /dont/ want
> > to do with /proc/interrupts, for (very) basic compatibility,
> > simplicity and policy reasons. And that is precisely what your
> > suggestion was to 'solve' this supposed 'problem' - so it's very
> > much relevant.
>
> As I said you are misunderstanding me .. which is why this is not
> relevant any more ..
actually, i quoted what you said:
| If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as "lapic-timer"
| and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names) and replace it with
| the count from LOC
this is a pretty clear sentence, i dont think i misunderstood anything
about it. If i did, please point it out specifically.
Ingo
-
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]
