Re: 2.6.17-mm4

On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:56:22 -0700
john stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Andrew: While clearly there is the deeper issue of why interrupts are
enabled before they should be, I may still like to push the two-liner
above, since its a bit safer should someone accidentally enable
interrupts early again. Looking back in my patch history it was
previously in the order above until I switched it (I suspect
accidentally) in the C0 rework.

I also added a warning message so we can still detect the problem w/o
hanging.

Does the patch below look reasonable?

thanks
-john

Signed-off-by: John Stultz <johnstul@xxxxxxxxxx>

diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
index b2f3b56..2984d16 100644
--- a/init/main.c
+++ b/init/main.c
@@ -496,8 +496,8 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void
init_timers();
hrtimers_init();
softirq_init();
- time_init();
timekeeping_init();
+ time_init();


I looked at doing this and there appeared to be interdependencies between
these two functions. In that timekeeping_init()'s behaviour would be
different if time_init() hadn't run yet.

So are you really really sure?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/