On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote:
> So summarizing the above, because as much as I'm aware, its always been > redundant and unnecessary on x86. Thus being able at build time to mark it > as unnecessary was attractive, since it reduced the code paths running at > suspend/resume. > > That said, Kay's concerns about userland implications (basically the > userland side effects of SYSTOHC being enabled) give me pause, so I may > revert the HAS_PERSISTENT_CLOCK on x86 change. Thanks a lot for all the missing details! No, I think that all makes too much sense to revert it. Let's just find a way to solve it properly. I don't think it is of any pressing importance to keep the old behaviour, if we can still provide the functionality today. I'll continue replying in the later mail ... Kay -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
