Re: 2.6.17-mm4

[john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 16:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Jul 2006 10:56:22 -0700
> john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> 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 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?

timekeeping_init() is pretty straight forward:

	write_seqlock_irqsave(&xtime_lock, flags);
	clock = clocksource_get_next();
	clocksource_calculate_interval(clock, tick_nsec);
	clock->cycle_last = clocksource_read(clock);
	ntp_clear();
	write_sequnlock_irqrestore(&xtime_lock, flags);

We initialize the clock value and call ntp_clear.  The jiffies
clocksource will be used to start - other clocksources will be selected
as they become available.

Just to be sure, which inter-dependencies where you're thinking of?

thanks
-john