* David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see nothing illegal in what cpu_clock() is doing, that's why I fixed
> the sparc64 per-cpu problem I ran into since sparc64 was doing the
> wrong thing when booted on a non-zero cpu.
okay. I'm just somewhat uneasy about potentially losing the ability to
printk. printk must stay simple and dependable. Maybe PRINTK_TIMESTAMPs
should be delayed to at the point when system_state == SYSTEM_RUNNING.
Ingo
--
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/
