On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 18:16:31 -0800 Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-01-23 at 22:00 +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > - Provide a generic way to verify clocksources. TSC needs > > verification due to broken hardware and BIOS implementations. The > > previous attempt to allow TSC usage for high resolution and/or > > dynamic ticks only in combination with the PM-Timer made hardwired > > assumptions, which are ugly to maintain. The new verification code > > solves this by chosing the best available clocksource for > > verification and handles the usability check for highres / dynamic > > ticks. This makes TSC code agnostic of other hardware available in > > the system. > > > There appears to be some fairly clear duplication between my clocksource > tree and this release of high resolution timers. Not to mention that we > both submitted our tree's to Andrew within days . > > To lessen Andrews burden it would be wise to integrate the two trees > prior to anything going into -mm .. It makes sense to eliminate this > kind of duplication since it just results in wasted effort. With the > benefit that the merge would likely result in a stronger patch set over > all. > There's also the question of testing status. We know that the dynticks patches in -mm mostly work. Now that they appear to have been largely respun, we don't know that any more. Then if we go adding more stuff on top, problem identification becomes harder. I thought that dynticks/hrtimers was a done thing: in fact $certain_people wanted them in 2.6.20. The late-breaking rip-up-and-rewrite was rather unwelcome. But I haven't got onto reading the patchset yet. - 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/
