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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Thomas Gleixner
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 5:34 pm

On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:15 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:

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


-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, David Brownell, (Wed Jan 31, 12:43 pm)
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, Daniel Walker, (Wed Jan 31, 3:47 pm)
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, Thomas Gleixner, (Wed Jan 31, 4:23 pm)
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, Daniel Walker, (Wed Jan 31, 5:15 pm)
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, David Brownell, (Wed Jan 31, 5:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority, Thomas Gleixner, (Wed Jan 31, 5:34 pm)