From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <18200.3600.459275.823335@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:53:20 +1000 From: Paul Mackerras To: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Implement clockevents driver for powerpc In-Reply-To: <471777BD.8090800@ru.mvista.com> References: <20070921032603.0D3EA32C887@thor> <4713A616.3090103@ru.mvista.com> <18195.64334.985238.848522@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <47161C38.2070305@ru.mvista.com> <18198.44590.721412.314409@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <471777BD.8090800@ru.mvista.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Thomas Gleixner , Realtime Kernel List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sergei Shtylyov writes: > And now you have incomplete read_persistent_clock() implementation for I don't see anything incomplete about it. If you do, feel free to post a patch. > example, god knows why it was preferred to mine -- well, it also implemented Your most recent post of your patch to implement read_persistent_clock was in May -- five months ago -- and you said this about it: "This patch hasn't received a good testing though". You don't have to be a god to figure out why I preferred a patch that had been tested, where the author was responding to comments and posting updated versions of his patch in the period leading up to the merge window, over that. > Well, that's up to you. I take it you wouldn't accept a patch > implementing auto-reload mode? I already told you. Show me numbers (real measurements showing that it's better) and I'll consider it. > There are. I'll have to send patches (it's not that I have time for this) > but this is surely the fastest way to get things fixed (if I don't get ignored > that is). All of us only get stuff in by spending the time to develop patches and posting them for comment. Stop whinging. > I just wanted the reasons clarified and got what I wanted -- as I thought, > the decision behind preferring patches was somewhat biased, nobody really > cared about code quality or just wasn't familiar with hrtimers enough to judge > on the code quality... You really know how to persuade people to cooperate, don't you... :P Paul.