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

C. Scott Ananian (
Fri, 15 May 1998 03:11:13 -0400 (EDT)

On Thu, 14 May 1998, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Well, the other gem embedded in time.c is something like
> if (cyrix)
> x86_capability &= ~16;

I saw that, too. I thought, "very clever"...
Then I saw the #ifndef's removed and I thought... "more clever still, I
wonder how time.c was fixed"...
I didn't see a fix to time.c so I thought, "Someone must have hacked
apm_bios.c to switch off getfasttimeofday before APM suspend"...
I didn't see that, either, so I knew something was wrong. =)

> I can certainly put the APM workaround back, but I'd like to hear if
> somebody actually has problems with this change before I do so.

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.

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?
@ @
C. Scott Ananian: / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from

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