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/
