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

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

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> 
> * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > > > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
> > > > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
> > > > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
> > > > the tip tree.
> > > > 
> > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > > > 
> > > > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
> > > 
> > > Agreed.
> > > 
> > > Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the 
> > > current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits 
> > > should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
> > > 
> > 
> > All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and 
> > cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
> 
> I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time 
> related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all 
> concentrated in a single tree?

Ok, will do. Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array
to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined
by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse
checking when reading from cpustat.

-- 
blue skies,
   Martin.

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