Re: [PATCH3/5] tick: Simplify tick-internal.h

[Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

On 06/30/2015 04:19 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 05:20:23PM +0530, Preeti U Murthy wrote:
>> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>>
>> commit b7475eb599ddb2e8cab2dc86ff38a9507463ad6b upstream
>>
>> tick-internal.h is pretty confusing as a lot of the stub inlines
>> are there several times.
>>
>> Distangle the maze and make clear functional sections.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> [ rjw: Subject ]
>> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/16068264.vcNp79HLaT@vostro.rjw.lan
>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Preeti U Murthy <preeti@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> You don't mention that you changed this function from what it is
> upstream, which isn't ok to do without a good reason.
> 
> I'm really not liking this series, it's very intrusive for almost no
> gain.  In other words, you have a very specific platform, with limited
> users, and a limited use case, yet are asking for core timer functions
> to be made for a kernel that I'm going to stop maintaining after the
> next release.
> 
> In other words, these patches are going to only have a lifespan of 1
> more week, max.  By then, all your users should be on 4.1, so 4.0
> doesn't matter anymore.
> 
> So I'm just going to drop this whole series, sorry.  If you have a
> distro that "has to have these", then please work with them, otherwise,
> just use 4.1, as all is good, and most importantly, properly tested,
> there.

Fair enough. Thanks.

Regards
Preeti U Murthy
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
>