On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:42:12 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> * Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Subject : jiffies counter leaps in 2.6.24-rc3
> > Submitter : Stefano Brivio <[email protected]>
> > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/11/24/53
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9475
> > Handled-By : Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
> > Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/7/132
>
> Linus, Andrew, i need some help deciding what to do about this
> regression. The fixes for this have been tested and resolve the
> regression, but they change printk and other code that runs by default
> and is thus rather invasive so late in the v2.6.24 cycle. This bug
> should only affect CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME=y kernels (a non-default debug
> option) - although some claimed effect was on udelay()/mdelay() too.
>
> i've attached below the queue of 5 patches that fix this problem. They
> have been build and boot tested with more than 1000 random kernels in
> the past few days, so i certainly trust the core and x86 bits of this.
>
> what do you think? Right now i've got them queued up for 2.6.25 in both
> the scheduler-devel and the x86-devel git trees - but can submit them
> for 2.6.24 if it's better if we did them there. I've got no strong
> opinion either way.
printk_clock() doesn't seem terribly important but what's this stuff about
effects on udelay/mdelay? That can be serious if they're getting
shortened.
--
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]
