Re: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent_clock()

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:

> Ingo Molnar writes:
> 
> > * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> 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