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/
