Re: 2.6.17-mm4

Andrew Morton
2006-07-01T23:57:20Z

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 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@us.ibm.com>
>
> 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?