On Fri, Aug 02 2024 at 12:04, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2024-08-02 at 12:49 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> So fine, we can go with the patch from Li, but the changelog needs a >> rewrite and the code want's a big fat comment. > > Nah, it wants to be MODE, COUNT, COUNT, MODE to handle all known > implementations. Yes. That works for whatever reason :) > Already posted as [PATCH 2/1] (with big fat comments and a version of > your test) at > > https://lore.kernel.org/kvm/3bc237678ade809cc685fedb8c1a3d435e590639.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Although I just realised that I edited the first patch (to *remove* the > now-bogus comments about the stop sequence) before posting that one, so > they don't follow cleanly from one another; there's a trivial conflict. > I also forgot to remove the pre-1999 typedefs from the test program, > despite fixing it to use <stdint.h> like it's the 21st century :) Grandpas are allowed to use pre-1999 typedefs. :) > Top two commits of > https://git.infradead.org/users/dwmw2/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/clocks > > I'll repost properly if you're happy with them? Just make the disable unconditional. Thanks, tglx
