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 beenThanks a lot for all the missing details!
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
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.
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