From: Kay Sievers
Date: Wed Apr 24 2013 - 12:33:15 EST

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So summarizing the above, because as much as I'm aware, its always been
> redundant and unnecessary on x86. Thus being able at build time to mark it
> as unnecessary was attractive, since it reduced the code paths running at
> suspend/resume.
> That said, Kay's concerns about userland implications (basically the
> userland side effects of SYSTOHC being enabled) give me pause, so I may
> revert the HAS_PERSISTENT_CLOCK on x86 change.

Thanks a lot for all the missing details!

No, I think that all makes too much sense to revert it. Let's just
find a way to solve it properly. I don't think it is of any pressing
importance to keep the old behaviour, if we can still provide the
functionality today.

I'll continue replying in the later mail ...

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at