Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:15 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > clocksource_initcall is simply superfluid. 
>
> My position has always been that clocksources should be registered as
> early as possible .. The fs_initcall() usage is a compromise stemming
> from early resistance that John, and you gave to moving the clocks up in
> the initcall sequence.

No. I never objected against the registering of clocks at any given
time. Why would I have otherwise accepted ARM patches, which register
their clocksources in the early timer init ?

The only concern I had and still have is when we decide to use something
else than the "safe" heaven of jiffies.

	tglx


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/