Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Chris Wright]

* Linus Torvalds (torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> For example, we can make sure that the code in question that actually 
> touches the hardware stays exactly the same, and then just move the 
> interfaces around - and basically guarantee that _zero_ hardware-specific 
> issues pop up when you switch over, for example.

That's not quite right.  Leaving the code unchanged caused breakage
already.  The PIT is damn stupid and can be sensitive to how quickly it's
programmed.  So code that enable/disable didn't change, but frequency
with which it is called did and broke some random boxes.

> The other approach (which would be nice _too_) is to actually try to 
> convert one clock source at a time. Why is that not an option? 

It was that way for x86_64, that's the first thing I fixed (since it was
done by fully disabling all other timers but the one coverted ;-)
-
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/