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

Linus Torvalds (
Fri, 15 May 1998 01:19:34 -0700 (PDT)

On Fri, 15 May 1998, C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> Well, you should probably remove the other #ifndef CONFIG_APMs in time.c,
> then, so that the kernel will properly *compile* with CONFIG_APM defined.
> ;-)

details, details...

> I've got a laptop with APM support running Linux. What's a good way to
> torture test it with getfasttimeoffset? I'm looking for a divide-by-zero
> oops, right?

The more I think about it, the more I have a little voice saying "suspend
to disk, suspend to disk".

I don't know how suspend to disk works, but I suspect it may be turning
off the whole CPU, and in that case the cycle counter will certainly be a
goner when we resume, unless some CPU engineer has come up with something
really revolutionary.

So I guess the #ifdef _will_ be needed, but I'd like to get confirmation
that this isn't just the cyrix problem after all..


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to