Re: [PATCH 1/5] Skip timer works.patch

[Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>]

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 12:54:55PM -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >no_timer_check. But it's only there on x86-64 in mainline - although there
> >were some patches to add it to i386 too.
> >  
> 
> I can rename to match the x86-64 name.

I will do that in my tree.

> >>That is what this patch is building towards, but the boot option is
> >>"free", so why not?  In the meantime, it helps non-paravirt kernels
> >>booted in a VM.
> >>    
> >
> >Hmm, you meant they paniced before?  If they just fail a few tests
> >that is not particularly worrying (real hardware does that often too)
> >  
> 
> Yes, they sometimes fail to boot, and the failure message used to ask us 
> to pester mingo.

I still think we should figure that out automatically. Letting
the Hypervisor pass magic boot options seems somehow unclean.

But i suppose it will only work for the paravirtualized case,
not for the case of kernel running "native" under a hypervisor
I suppose? Or does that one not panic?


-Andi