RE: 2.1.102 and APM -- is the patch correct?

Garst R. Reese (reese@isn.net)
Fri, 15 May 1998 02:11:49 -0300

Hi Scott,
I have a Laptop with APM. I removed the other #ifndef CONFIG_APM's and
the #endif's to get 2.1.102 to compile.
I then suspended and let it sit awhile, then did:
date ; hwclock
The two matched. (using apm-1.4)
It seems that this question was hashed over on the list.
------------------------------------
"C. Scott Ananian" <cananian@lcs.mit.edu> wrote:
Thu, 14 May 1998 22:21:30 -0400 (EDT)

patch-2.1.102 has this little gem embedded in it:

[patch snipped]
Is this correct? As far as I know, APM can slow or stop the processor
clock with impunity; thus those #ifdefs *really do* belong there, unless
some other means to conditionally disable do_fast_gettimeoffset is
available. I think that this portion of the patch should be reversed
for
2.1.103. Comments?
-------------------------------------- 

-- 
Garst


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu