From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752906Ab3LMOKc (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:10:32 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f177.google.com ([209.85.215.177]:49654 "EHLO mail-ea0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752880Ab3LMOK1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:10:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 15:10:23 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: John Stultz Cc: LKML , Thomas Gleixner , Prarit Bhargava , Richard Cochran , stable Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/5] timekeeping: Fix CLOCK_TAI timer/nanosleep delays Message-ID: <20131213141023.GC12379@gmail.com> References: <1386789098-17391-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <1386789098-17391-5-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <20131212132518.GB16360@gmail.com> <52AA00E6.2040700@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52AA00E6.2040700@linaro.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * John Stultz wrote: > > If the bugs extend to more than this two-liner then for -stable it > > might be better to just disable CLOCK_TAI (userspace can deal with > > it just fine), and queue up the right fixes for the next merge > > window or so. > > I don't foresee further issues (famous last words, eh), but since I > was planning on keeping patch #4 and #5 for 3.14 anyway, we can wait > till those land upstream to decide if the two-liner is sufficient or > if disabling CLOCK_TAI in older -stable kernels is the right > approach. That sound ok? Yeah, that certainly sounds good to me. Thanks, Ingo