Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 1 Jul 2006 16:57:13 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.17-mm4 |
| |
On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:56:22 -0700 john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Andrew: While clearly there is the deeper issue of why interrupts are > enabled before they should be, I may still like to push the two-liner > above, since its a bit safer should someone accidentally enable > interrupts early again. Looking back in my patch history it was > previously in the order above until I switched it (I suspect > accidentally) in the C0 rework. > > I also added a warning message so we can still detect the problem w/o > hanging. > > Does the patch below look reasonable? > > thanks > -john > > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> > > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c > index b2f3b56..2984d16 100644 > --- a/init/main.c > +++ b/init/main.c > @@ -496,8 +496,8 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void > init_timers(); > hrtimers_init(); > softirq_init(); > - time_init(); > timekeeping_init(); > + time_init(); >
I looked at doing this and there appeared to be interdependencies between these two functions. In that timekeeping_init()'s behaviour would be different if time_init() hadn't run yet.
So are you really really sure? - 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/
| |