From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751392AbZHXDUz (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:20:55 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751224AbZHXDUy (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:20:54 -0400 Received: from bilbo.ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.25]:41921 "EHLO bilbo.ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750696AbZHXDUx (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:20:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <19090.1800.521794.839576@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:20:40 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Martin Schwidefsky , dwalker@fifo99.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, tglx@linutronix.de, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent_clock() In-Reply-To: <20090823084740.GA7651@elte.hu> References: <20090814134811.013873340@de.ibm.com> <20090822103252.GA32369@elte.hu> <20090822171540.1220f50d@skybase> <20090822153346.GA3313@elte.hu> <19088.47213.327897.703458@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20090823084740.GA7651@elte.hu> X-Mailer: VM 8.0.12 under 22.2.1 (i486-pc-linux-gnu) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar writes: > Do you ask Linus to rebase the upstream kernel as well, if the > powerpc or x86 build happens to break? There's more than a dozen > such cases per development cycle triggering on my tests alone. If > not, why not? I see you pulling commits out of the tip tree quite often, when they have testing failures of various kinds. I presume that, like other maintainers, you have some branches that you try hard not to rebase and other testing branches that are quite volatile and get reconstructed frequently (though I don't know what branch names you use for them). I presumed that you wouldn't have put a commit that hadn't even passed basic build testing into one of your non-rebasing branches. That's why I assumed you could fold the fix into the original patch without difficulty. > The thing is, we'll probably redo this portion of the timer tree as > i found other problems in testing, but generally the disadvantages > of a build breakage with a very small non-bisectability window has > to be weighed against the disadvantages of a rebase (which are > significant). > > The equation does not automatically flip in favor of a rebase as you > seem to suggest - in fact it generally goes _against_ a rebase. In a stable, non-rebasing branch, sure. But putting untested patches into such a branch would be a bit silly, so I assumed you hadn't done that. :) Paul.