From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:37:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:37:07 -0500 Received: from colorfullife.com ([216.156.138.34]:32012 "EHLO colorfullife.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 8 Dec 2001 12:36:58 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c1800e$f25af7f0$010411ac@local> From: "Manfred Spraul" To: "Alan Cox" Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] 2.4.16 kernel/printk.c (per processorinitializationcheck) Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2001 18:36:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Alan Cox wrote: > x86_udelay_tsc wont have been set at that point so the main timer is still > being used. No. x86_udelay_tsc is initialized by time_init(), and time_init() is called before smp_init(). The udelay implementation only multiplies with loops_per_jiffy, therefore there is no oops on i386. But could oops if the bios disables the TSC instruction - the first printk on the secondary cpu happens before clear_in_cr4(X86_CR4_VME|X86_CR4_PVI|X86_CR4_TSD|X86_CR4_DE) -- Manfred