* Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> On 09.03.14 at 19:50, Matt Fleming <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, 09 Mar, at 04:31:41PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Sun, Mar 09, 2014 at 04:20:20PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> >>
> >> > We have tried to use the time functions before, with little success
> >> > because of various bugs in the runtime implementations, e.g. see commit
> >> > bacef661acdb ("x86-64/efi: Use EFI to deal with platform wall clock")
> >> > and commit bd52276fa1d4 ("x86-64/efi: Use EFI to deal with platform wall
> >> > clock (again)").
> >>
> >> I'd naively expected that these would be more reliable after the
> >> 1:1 mapping patches, so it might actually be time to give them
> >> another go.
> >
> > Is there any value in that? Do machines exist where we absolutely
> > must have access to the EFI time services? Either because there's
> > no other method or no other working one?
>
> Is it such a bad thing to be prepared for this sort of machine to
> arrive even if likely there are none so far?
"Be prepared for a not yet existing machine" != "time to give them
another go on existing machines", right?
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
