On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vet...@ffwll.ch> wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz <john.stu...@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? >>> >>> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion: >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/187 >>> >>> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase >>> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping >>> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches. >> >> Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw >> it being resubmitted. > > I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 Maybe I missed > it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall.
Ok, I wasn't cc'ed on the v2, thanks for the pointer. There's some general lukewarmness to all things jiffies, since getting rid of them has been a long term goal forever. But overall that patch set seemed ok (though I'm not a fan of macro generation of functions). But minor details.. thanks -john _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
