On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > Adding another check after the second get_cycles() makes it reliable:
> 
> My original patch actually had that, and Ingo added it to the -tip tree 
> too (I think), so that should be the one we're discussing anyway. I just 
> didn't think it would ever trigger in practice, which is why I removed it. 
> Mea culpa.

My bad. Did not test that against -tip, just applied it from mail :)

Just checked. The -tip version still has the expect-- in the for()
which might lead to stupid results depending on the gcc madness level.

Thanks,

	tglx