Re: [PATCH] Re: time() glitch on 2.4.18: solved

[Alan Cox]

On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:02, Jim Paris wrote:
> > > > +		if (count > LATCH) {
> > > 
> > > may be (count >= LATCH) would be even better ?
> > 
> > Some PIT clones seem to hold the LATCH value momentarily judging by
> > other things that were triggered wrongly by >=
> 
> If so, then that's a separate problem: the later code
> 
> 	count = ((LATCH-1) - count) * TICK_SIZE;
> 	delay_at_last_interrupt = (count + LATCH/2) / LATCH;
> 

It might be interesting to catch that case with a printk too and put
both in 2.5 and see what comes out in the wash yes