On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 01:30 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote: > > My patch set has been stable for months, and reviewed and tested by > John and I constantly (With you and Thomas on the CC list each > release).. It's a completely safe bet, IMO .
Oh, I really wanted to stay out of this, but just a small clarification: I've reviewed your patches on a number of occasions, but I can't recall actually having the time to run them. Personally, I'm a little paranoid, so I'd be wary of counting any testing outside of -mm for much, as there are an amazing number of strange systems out there. Ok, so my take: While I've looked over both patch sets, and have noticed (and mentioned to tglx) the similarity in some of the changes, I don't see any big conflict in intent. They're both cleanups that make the clocksource code more flexible for uses other them just system timekeeping. Thomas' changes are more obviously purpose driven, and Daniel's appear more like just cleanups. So given that, if it were me, I'd put Thomas changes in first, and re-diff Daniel's non-redundant changes on top. Although, to be fair, I do know that Daniel has future sched_clock related patches that need his cleanups (so the cleanups are not just shuffling code). However, I'm not as psyched about those changes as I am about HRT, so again I'd rank HRT higher on the priority list. So I'm bummed this has collided like it has. I do like a number of Daniel's cleanups, and Thomas (and myself as well, really) could have communicated better. So the duplicate code is unfortunate, but its not really a stop-everything deal breaker, is it? Anyway, just my take. -john - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
