On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <[email protected]> > >> > >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> > > > > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <[email protected]> > > > > As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how > > it was before my patch. Since nobody saw any problems before my patch, > > lower granularity should be fine. > > Agreed. Mel's patch basically restores the previous behavior while > keeping the 64-bit timestamp size. > > Considering where we are at with the merge window, I'm going to merge > this into the audit/next branch and not send this up to Linus during > the current window; while the patch is small, I like to give things > some time in linux-next before sending them up.
That's completely fine, I knew the timing was off. Thanks for picking it up. -- Mel Gorman SUSE Labs
