From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200011010733.IAA00809@piglet.grunz.lu> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2000 08:33:45 +0100 (CET) From: Michel Lanners Reply-To: mlan@cpu.lu Subject: Re: 2.2.18pre17 again To: bh40@calva.net cc: paulus@linuxcare.com.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: <19340925052524.13014@192.168.1.2> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On 31 Oct, this message from Benjamin Herrenschmidt echoed through cyberspace: >>- ICTC support in the sysctl interface: > > Won't this require recalibrating the loops_per_jiffy for udelay() ? In a perfect world, yes. But I have seen no ill effects of a (limited) loops_per_jiffy mismatch. But I agree, if you want to heavily use ICTC we'd better fix this part. But the solution has followed ;-) Michel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michel Lanners | " Read Philosophy. Study Art. 23, Rue Paul Henkes | Ask Questions. Make Mistakes. L-1710 Luxembourg | email mlan@cpu.lu | http://www.cpu.lu/~mlan | Learn Always. " ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/