From: Jurij Smakov <jurij@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 19:47:21 -0700 (PDT) > From what I can tell, the only thing which removed code in second/timer.c > did is a) store the current value of the tick_cmpr register in the > sun4u_tickcmpr variable and disable interrupts from tick_cmpr by setting > bit 63 in it in sun4u_init_timer(); and b) restore the tick_cmpr value > from the variable in close_timer(). Could you explain how the removal of > this code could lead to the dramatic effect if timeout not being honoured? > tick_cmpr register is not touched elsewhere in the code, and I would > naively think that it should still work on *any* machine which has a tick > register (which Ultra10 obviously has). Any pointers to documentation > would be greatly appreciated. In fact the code was a nop as far as I could tell, that's why I removed it. Perhaps we can put it back in, I don't know. I'm very busy with gdb and Mono bug fixing at the moment, so I don't have time to look at it right now. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
