From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@gmail.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:20:20 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070525112020.GN8094@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070525101248.GA7547@elte.hu>
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:12:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > > please indicate that you've picked up my style cleanups, i dont want
> > > to redo all this a few days/weeks down the line ...
> >
> > It's done slightly differently now due to conflicting earlier changes,
> > but the end result should be about what you intended. [...]
>
> please send me your current sched-clock.c, i'll redo any remaining
> cleanups.
It needs at least one new preliminary patch (to add on_cpu_single);
please get the series from
ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches-2.6.22-rc2-git7-070525-1.tar.gz
You need at least tsc-unstable upto paravirt-add-a-sched_clock-paravirt
for everything
> But ... i find your approach curious, why didnt you just apply the
> cleanups i sent? You clearly started working on this as a reaction to my
> cleanup patches and to the bugfixes i sent ontop of the cleanup patches.
> Your "I'll do this differently" approach is totally unnecessary from a
> commit management point of view (this is new code after all and
> will/should go upstream in a single clean chunk anyway), the only effect
> this has is that that you are discouraging contributors like me from
> contributing cleanups to the x86_64 tree.
Unfortunately right now it is a already a set of patches; e.g. due to
the paravirt ops change. I can merge back the cleanup change; but
kept it separately due to your earlier complaint about not using
your patch. I think one hunk of your original one is still in there :-)
> so to me the impression is
> that deep in yourself you are (subconsciously) not happy about others
> contributing to the x86_64 tree. Please tell me that i'm wrong :-(
You're reading too much into that. Of course I value contributions
to x86-64, including cleanups. In general when I don't like it I complain
so saying nothing is approval (or me being not reading email, but that
doesn't happen that often)
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-25 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-25 7:10 [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:22 ` Satyam Sharma
2007-05-25 7:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:35 ` Satyam Sharma
2007-05-25 7:39 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 7:58 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:16 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 8:21 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 7:38 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 7:31 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 7:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:43 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 7:54 ` [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock() Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:02 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:04 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:20 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:34 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:41 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:44 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:45 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:55 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:55 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 9:03 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 9:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 9:46 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 10:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:20 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-05-25 11:26 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:46 ` [patch] sched_clock: fix preempt count imbalance Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:50 ` [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups, #2 Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:55 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 12:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 12:15 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 16:17 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-25 16:26 ` Daniel Walker
2007-05-25 16:33 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 16:49 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-25 18:08 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 19:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 19:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-05-25 10:27 ` [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock() Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 11:05 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-28 3:12 ` Rusty Russell
2007-05-25 8:08 ` [patch] i386, numaq: enable TSCs again Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:19 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-25 8:22 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-25 8:25 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-25 8:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:38 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-25 8:41 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 18:16 ` Dave Hansen
2007-05-25 18:23 ` john stultz
2007-05-25 8:15 ` [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock() Peter Zijlstra
2007-05-25 8:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2007-05-25 8:22 ` [patch] sched_clock(): cleanups Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070525112020.GN8094@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=satyam.sharma@gmail.com \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox