From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755905AbZHWIsH (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:48:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755865AbZHWIsG (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:48:06 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:45133 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751200AbZHWIsE (ORCPT ); Sun, 23 Aug 2009 04:48:04 -0400 Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:47:40 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Paul Mackerras 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() Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <19088.47213.327897.703458@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul Mackerras wrote: > Ingo Molnar writes: > > > * Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > > > I overlooked a case in the powerpc version of read_persistent_lock. > > > New patch: > > > > the patches are already committed and this patch doesnt apply - > > mind sending a delta fix against tip:master: > > Is that going to leave us with a bisection breakage on powerpc > once this stuff goes upstream? If so please fold the fix into the > original patch. 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? 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. Ingo