Andrew Morton wrote:
> Elias Kesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Looking at the archives I see that a an intel patch
>> was submitted back in October but I am unable to
>> determine what the resolution was.
>
> What patch was that?
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/10/29/332
> OK. But adding fiddle new
>http://tree.celinuxforum.org/CelfPubWiki/RTCNoSync
The webpage says...
>One tradeoff in making this modification is that the time stored by the Linux
>kernel is no longer completely synchronized
If one runs "hwclock", the delta is barely 0.000, but always some more or some
less, so it should
Elias Kesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to get some feedback on this patch for the kernel. It's sole
> purpose is to help in reducing boot time by not waiting to synchronize the
> clock edge with the hardware clock. This when combined with other boot
> reduction patch
Hello,
I would like to get some feedback on this patch for the kernel. It's sole
purpose is to help in reducing boot time by not waiting to synchronize the
clock edge with the hardware clock. This when combined with other boot
reduction patched can bring the kernel boot time to well under 10 s
4 matches
Mail list logo
