> The 2.2.20-pre2 patch doesn't change time.c, and I don't see
> this code in 2.4.4 or 2.4.5pre.
its in 2.4.4-ac where Im testing the change
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
I'm confused. The 2.2.19 time.c is already doing ">":
/* VIA686a test code... reset the latch if count > max */
if (count > LATCH-1) {
[adjust count and whine]
The 2.2.20-pre2 patch doesn't change time.c, and I don't see
this code in 2.4.4 or 2.4.5pre.
Are you saying the code
I'm confused. The 2.2.19 time.c is already doing :
/* VIA686a test code... reset the latch if count max */
if (count LATCH-1) {
[adjust count and whine]
The 2.2.20-pre2 patch doesn't change time.c, and I don't see
this code in 2.4.4 or 2.4.5pre.
Are you saying the code should
The 2.2.20-pre2 patch doesn't change time.c, and I don't see
this code in 2.4.4 or 2.4.5pre.
its in 2.4.4-ac where Im testing the change
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at
> How well has the problem been nailed down? Could it be that it just
> showed up first on VIA and the real cause (and fix) remains to be
> discovered? Or does Serverworks somehow have an identical bug in
> their chipset?
There is a notional off by one in the check at least by the rules of the
I'm getting messages saying "clock timer configuration lost - probably
a VIA686a" from 2.2.19 running on a board using the Serverworks HE
chipset. Reading the list archives it sounds like this problem has
previously been attributed to a possible bug in the VIA chipset.
According to RedHat's
I'm getting messages saying clock timer configuration lost - probably
a VIA686a from 2.2.19 running on a board using the Serverworks HE
chipset. Reading the list archives it sounds like this problem has
previously been attributed to a possible bug in the VIA chipset.
According to RedHat's
How well has the problem been nailed down? Could it be that it just
showed up first on VIA and the real cause (and fix) remains to be
discovered? Or does Serverworks somehow have an identical bug in
their chipset?
There is a notional off by one in the check at least by the rules of the
8 matches
Mail list logo
