Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161269AbXAHXTH (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:19:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161288AbXAHXTH (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:19:07 -0500 Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:46320 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161271AbXAHXTE (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Jan 2007 18:19:04 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Adrian Bunk Cc: Linus Torvalds , Tobias Diedrich , Yinghai Lu , Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mingo@redhat.com, discuss@x86-64.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails. References: <5986589C150B2F49A46483AC44C7BCA490733F@ssvlexmb2.amd.com> <86802c440701022223q418bd141qf4de8ab149bf144b@mail.gmail.com> <20070108005556.GA2542@melchior.yamamaya.is-a-geek.org> <20070108202105.GB6167@stusta.de> <20070108223355.GI6167@stusta.de> Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:18:33 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20070108223355.GI6167@stusta.de> (Adrian Bunk's message of "Mon, 8 Jan 2007 23:33:55 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 39 Adrian Bunk writes: > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 02:45:00PM -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Adrian Bunk writes: > > We just got a completely different bug reported that was confirmed to be > caused by Andi's patch: > AMD64/ATI : timer is running twice as fast as it should [1] Odd. I didn't think Andi's code worked well enough that we could hit anything but the default trust the BIOS case. I guess someone had the right hardware to perform that miracle. >> I really don't care how we do it, or in what timeframe. But what I have >> posted is the only way I can see of making it better, than what we had >> in 2.6.19. >>... > > My whole point is that for 2.6.20, we can live with simply reverting > Andi's commit. > > What to do for 2.6.21 is a completely different story. That is where I figured we were when we first hit this bug. I have always found the ways of stable tree maintainers to be mysterious. Sometimes holding back code with minimal risk sometimes insisting we cleanup things instead of reverting things. So I have just decided to write the code and let other people figure out when it should be merged :) And of course when my code has problems to address them. Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/