Re: linux-next: manual merge of the cputime tree

[Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 11:06 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 20:21 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> > 
> > Today's linux-next merge of the cputime tree got a conflict in
> > kernel/sched.c between commit 74fcd524e808975dd546dac847119f1995a7c622
> > ("account_steal_time: kill the unneeded account_group_system_time()")
> > from the tip-core tree and commit
> > b7f4776b7f575ed8f288c44b64befd241fd44458 ("[PATCH] idle cputime
> > accounting") from the cputime tree.
> > 
> > The latter removes the call to account_group_system_time() as a side
> > effect of further changes.  So the fixup is to just take the latter
> > change.  I can carry the merge fix.
> 
> Why does s390 do its own cpu accounting?

Is that a trick question? I invented the cputime accounting specifically
for s390 because it is a virtual architecture and the standard cpu
accounting numbers are just useless.

-- 
blue skies,
  Martin.

"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.