From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 17:25:19 +0000 From: Russell King Subject: Re: Linus rollup Message-ID: <20030129172519.C6261@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20030128220729.1f61edfe.akpm@digeo.com> <20030129095949.A24161@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <15928.2469.865487.687367@napali.hpl.hp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <15928.2469.865487.687367@napali.hpl.hp.com>; from davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:04:37AM -0800 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: davidm@hpl.hp.com Cc: Andrew Morton , Andi Kleen , "David S. Miller" , David Mosberger , Anton Blanchard , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 09:04:37AM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > Should be fine as far as ia64 is concerned, since gettimeoffset() > currently simply reads the cycle-counter (and I think even HPET-based > interpolation would be lock-free). If you're happy, then I'm happy. I was only concerned because it looks like it might be a problem on some implementations, and I was wondering what would happen on ia64 if a timer interrupt occurs between reading jiffies and itm_next in gettimeoffset. -- Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/