Hi Thomas,
Thank you very much for a very insightful feedback. I will address your
comments, and if I have any questions, I will ask them before sending
out the next patchset.
A few replies below:
First of all, this "solution" is only valid for a very restricted set of
systems and breaks
Hi Thomas,
Thank you very much for a very insightful feedback. I will address your
comments, and if I have any questions, I will ask them before sending
out the next patchset.
A few replies below:
First of all, this "solution" is only valid for a very restricted set of
systems and breaks
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> The second versions was actually meant as a reply to your e-mail: the code
> differences were minimal: the main differences were in the cover letter. You
> mentioned that it is not necessary to have early boot time stamps, and I
> wanted to show
On Sat, 25 Mar 2017, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
> The second versions was actually meant as a reply to your e-mail: the code
> differences were minimal: the main differences were in the cover letter. You
> mentioned that it is not necessary to have early boot time stamps, and I
> wanted to show
Hi Thomas,
The second versions was actually meant as a reply to your e-mail: the
code differences were minimal: the main differences were in the cover
letter. You mentioned that it is not necessary to have early boot time
stamps, and I wanted to show examples how this data is useful to track
Hi Thomas,
The second versions was actually meant as a reply to your e-mail: the
code differences were minimal: the main differences were in the cover
letter. You mentioned that it is not necessary to have early boot time
stamps, and I wanted to show examples how this data is useful to track
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> changelog
> -
> v1 - v2
> In patch "x86/tsc: tsc early":
> - added tsc_adjusted_early()
> - fixed 32-bit compile error use do_div()
Did you actually read my last reply on V1 of this?
I made it entirely clear that the way
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> changelog
> -
> v1 - v2
> In patch "x86/tsc: tsc early":
> - added tsc_adjusted_early()
> - fixed 32-bit compile error use do_div()
Did you actually read my last reply on V1 of this?
I made it entirely clear that the way
changelog
-
v1 - v2
In patch "x86/tsc: tsc early":
- added tsc_adjusted_early()
- fixed 32-bit compile error use do_div()
Adding early boot time stamps support for x86 machines.
SPARC patch see here:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/sparclinux/msg17372.html
sample
changelog
-
v1 - v2
In patch "x86/tsc: tsc early":
- added tsc_adjusted_early()
- fixed 32-bit compile error use do_div()
Adding early boot time stamps support for x86 machines.
SPARC patch see here:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/sparclinux/msg17372.html
sample
10 matches
Mail list logo
