From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Apr  6 12:35:54 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E5237B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Apr 2003 12:35:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.86.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91ADB43FB1
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun,  6 Apr 2003 12:35:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h36JZpLd029408;
	Sun, 6 Apr 2003 21:35:51 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk)
To: des@ofug.org (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=)
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Apr 2003 21:16:55 +0200."
             <xzpsmsvl9lk.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> 
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 21:35:51 +0200
Message-ID: <29407.1049657751@critter.freebsd.dk>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: weird fxp / timecounter interaction in top-of-tree 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 19:35:54 -0000

In message <xzpsmsvl9lk.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8
rgrav?= writes:
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
>> Defining "best" is at best hard, so I have resorted to the simple
>> technique we use now:  Don't call tc_init on a timecounter unless
>> you want to use it.
>
>Huh?  I added a Debugger() call to tc_init(), and can assure you that
>it gets called for every timecounter in the system (in my case i8254,
>PIIX, TSC and ACPI, not necessarily in that order).

But they they happen, by no coincidence, to be called in exactly
the right order to result in the best safe choice in current
circumstances :-)

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.