On Tue, 2002-12-03 at 15:01, GrandMasterLee wrote:
[...]
> > The background on the silly naming is that earlier 2.4 kernels had xtime
> > not volatile but the prototype (or vice versa) and gcc3 didn't like that.
> 
> Ahh...kewl. thanks much. I was thinking that, but I was very confused by
> the naming versus the code. (not that I was *that* sure of the code
> anyway, but you know.) :)
> 
> 
> 
> > So the best idea would be to merge them into   if
> > you want to keep them.
> 
> Ok...that sounds like a plan. Thanks so much.

Here is the patch. I think it should be OK. I just took the two
questioned patches and applied them to 2.4.20, then diffed against a
pristine 2.4.20. 

--The GrandMaster
     <masterlee@digitalroadkill.net>