Re: [PATCH for review] [26/48] i386: hpet assumes boot cpu is 0

From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Thu Jul 19 2007 - 12:25:11 EST

Next message: Jan Engelhardt: "Re: [PATCH] Revert part of 3f1b0e1f287547903f11fa1e6de7d2765597766e"
Previous message: Robert P. J. Day: "Re: does CONFIG_UNUSED_SYMBOLS have any value anymore?"
In reply to: Andi Kleen: "[PATCH for review] [26/48] i386: hpet assumes boot cpu is 0"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "[PATCH for review] [27/48] i386: move PIT function declarations and constants to correct header file"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Andi Kleen wrote:
> From: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> I fixed this in x86_64. Looks like the kind of thing that will break voyager
> on i386.
>

All those Voyagers with hpet?

J
-
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/

Next message: Jan Engelhardt: "Re: [PATCH] Revert part of 3f1b0e1f287547903f11fa1e6de7d2765597766e"
Previous message: Robert P. J. Day: "Re: does CONFIG_UNUSED_SYMBOLS have any value anymore?"
In reply to: Andi Kleen: "[PATCH for review] [26/48] i386: hpet assumes boot cpu is 0"
Next in thread: Andi Kleen: "[PATCH for review] [27/48] i386: move PIT function declarations and constants to correct header file"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]