[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUD+-_AxXX7hbCsbe2jpytFeDJQQSAr0EHy3dX1V+GoxA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 10:49:46 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Stanton, Kevin B" <kevin.b.stanton@...el.com>,
kevin.j.clarke@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/8] Patchset enabling hardware based cross-timestamps
for next gen Intel platforms
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Christopher Hall
<christopher.s.hall@...el.com> wrote:
> I just sent another patchset (v8). I corrected the comment problems pointed
> out by Richard Cochran. I also changed the arch/x86 code to use "non-stop"
> TSC rather than "invariant" TSC. They are *exactly* the same thing (i.e.
> read from the same bit of the CPUID leaf). The former exists already and
> should be used instead. Patch 6/8 is the only patch that is changed apart
> from comments.
Ok. So I see you addressed some of Andy's feedback, but did you answer
the bit about the k offset?
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists