From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754891AbcGHMDe (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:03:34 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33826 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932534AbcGHMDJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jul 2016 08:03:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:03:03 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Frederic Weisbecker Cc: Rik van Riel , LKML , Paolo Bonzini , Peter Zijlstra , rkrcmar@redhat.com, Thomas Gleixner , Mike Galbraith , wanpeng.li@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] sched/cputime: Deltas for "replace VTIME_GEN irq time code with IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING code" Message-ID: <20160708120303.GA27634@gmail.com> References: <1467901657-25749-1-git-send-email-fweisbec@gmail.com> <1467907884.13253.12.camel@redhat.com> <20160708073046.GA2859@gmail.com> <20160708111751.GA30200@lerouge> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160708111751.GA30200@lerouge> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 16:27 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > > > > > While reviewing your 2nd patch, I thought about these cleanups. > > > > Perhaps > > > > the first one could be merged into your patch. I let you decide. > > > > > > I'm not convinced we want to merge cleanups and functional > > > changes into the same patch, given how convoluted the code > > > is/was. > > > > > > Both of your patches look good though. > > > > > > What tree should they go in through? > > > > -tip I suspect. So my plan was the following, this series of yours: > > > > [PATCH v3 0/4] sched,time: fix irq time accounting with nohz_idle > > > > ... looked almost ready, it looked like as if I could merge v4 once you sent it. > > > > Plus Frederic submitted these two cleanups - looks like I could merge these on top > > of your series and have them close to each other in the Git space. > > > > And I do agree that we should keep these cleanups separate and not merge them into > > patches that change functionality. > > > > If your series is expected to be risky then we could make things easier to handle > > later on if we switched around things and first made low-risk cleanups and then > > any changes/fixes on top - do you think that's necessary in this case? > > I personally think that none of this is low-risk material. Perhaps we can gather > the whole in the same tree? I can resend the series proper with my patches > inside if you like. And I have yet to review the last patch of the series. Sure, we can do it like that, for tip:timers/nohz. Thanks, Ingo