Hello, I wrote:
>>With these functions implemented we cooperate better with the generic
>>timekeeping code. This obsoletes the need for the timer sysdev as a bonus.
> Aha, I'm seeing it's not merged to mainline yet!
Contrarywise, it's been merged first -- looks like this all happened
b
Hello.
Tony Breeds wrote:
> With these functions implemented we cooperate better with the generic
> timekeeping code. This obsoletes the need for the timer sysdev as a bonus.
Aha, I'm seeing it's not merged to mainline yet! And this can't be merged
to -rt patch either, beucase -rt alsread
Hello.
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> Eh... poor you. Tony got clockevent driver reengineered for no apparent
>>reason. And he's introduced the jiffy drift by deleting the main loop from
>>timer_interrupt(). Yet this borken version was preferred to what was known
>>working since about 2.6
>Eh... poor you. Tony got clockevent driver reengineered for no apparent
> reason. And he's introduced the jiffy drift by deleting the main loop from
> timer_interrupt(). Yet this borken version was preferred to what was known
> working since about 2.6.18 and included into 2.6.21-rt patchs
Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>Eh... poor you. Tony got clockevent driver reengineered for no apparent
> reason. And he's introduced the jiffy drift by deleting the main loop from
> timer_interrupt().
The main loop in timer_interrupt() became unnecessary, because
update_wall_time contains an equ
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 22:07 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> > Proper approach is to rip off what is altready in -rt there and
> replace
> > it with Tony patch set.
>
> Tony's patchset is broken at places compared to what is in -rt. So
> that
> would be proper *double standard* approach. :-/
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>>I'm about to release a new -rt patch based on -rc8. This patch series
>>>blew up totally in trying to get it applied. I'm leaving it out, so after
>>>I release the next series, could you update these patches.
>>No wonder here: the -rt patch already has much of
Hello.
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>No wonder here: the -rt patch already has much of this code since around
>>>2.6.21. They have been submitted by me, mostly... and this patchset is
>>>against the Linus' tree.
>>That would explain it ;-)
>>I was searching the linux-rt-users mailing list for
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 23:39 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Tony,
>
> > I'm about to release a new -rt patch based on -rc8. This patch series
> > blew up totally in trying to get it applied. I'm leaving it out, so after
> > I release the next series, could yo
On Wed, 2007-09-26 at 15:44 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > No wonder here: the -rt patch already has much of this code since around
> > 2.6.21. They have been submitted by me, mostly... and this patchset is
> > against the Linus' tree.
>
> That would explain it ;-)
>
> I was searching the
--
On Wed, 26 Sep 2007, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Steven Rostedt wrote:
> > Tony,
>
> > I'm about to release a new -rt patch based on -rc8. This patch series
> > blew up totally in trying to get it applied. I'm leaving it out, so after
> > I release the next series, could you update the
Hello.
Steven Rostedt wrote:
> Tony,
> I'm about to release a new -rt patch based on -rc8. This patch series
> blew up totally in trying to get it applied. I'm leaving it out, so after
> I release the next series, could you update these patches.
No wonder here: the -rt patch already has much
Tony,
I'm about to release a new -rt patch based on -rc8. This patch series
blew up totally in trying to get it applied. I'm leaving it out, so after
I release the next series, could you update these patches.
Thanks,
-- Steve
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing
13 matches
Mail list logo
