Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Date | Thu, 01 Feb 2007 01:34:43 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 16:15 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > clocksource_initcall is simply superfluid. > > My position has always been that clocksources should be registered as > early as possible .. The fs_initcall() usage is a compromise stemming > from early resistance that John, and you gave to moving the clocks up in > the initcall sequence.
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
- 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/
|  |