From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753827Ab1LUTnV (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:21 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:59459 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752198Ab1LUTnT (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:43:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:43:18 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Michal Hocko Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Artem S. Tashkinov" , Dave Jones , Alexey Dobriyan , Thomas Gleixner , Andreas Schwab Subject: Re: [resend PATCH for 3.2] procfs: do not confuse jiffies with cputime64_t Message-Id: <20111221114318.014a65fa.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20111221100334.GD27137@tiehlicka.suse.cz> References: <201112120922.13633.arnd@arndb.de> <20111212124333.GC14720@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20111212131218.GD14720@tiehlicka.suse.cz> <20111221100334.GD27137@tiehlicka.suse.cz> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:03:34 +0100 Michal Hocko wrote: > Hmm, it seems that this bugfix (for 3.2) stalled. I guess that it is > primarily because it is multiarch fix. No, it's because I'm behind in my lkml reading and nobody cc'ed me on it. I'd have got there eventually. > I am sorry to bother you Andrew but could we push this through you, > please? Sure. > The full patch for reference: > --- > >From 1fca39b21f3b344c90c30d98db6dcdcdc6815797 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Andreas Schwab > Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:07:53 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] procfs: do not confuse jiffies with cputime64_t > > get_{idle,iowait}_time are supposed to return cputime64_t values, not > jiffies. Add usecs_to_cputime64 for this. Changelog is poor. The patch is described as a bugfix but there's no description of how the bug affects users. Without that information I am unable to understand why you think the patch should be in 3.2, why it should not be in 3.1, etc. And without that information, others will find it hard to determine whether this patch will fix some problem which they or their users are experiencing. (the patch doesn't apply successfully to 3.1 btw).