Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov writes:
>> And now you have incomplete read_persistent_clock() implementation for
> I don't see anything incomplete about it. If you do, feel free to
> post a patch.
The xtime_lock is still grabbed by time_init()
>>example, god knows why it was preferred to mine -- well, it also implemented
> Your most recent post of your patch to implement read_persistent_clock
> was in May -- five months ago -- and you said this about it: "This
Right, the most recent was in May but that was only a recast of the
October version (i.e. year old) -- that patch got somehow dropped from later
the -rt patches IIRC.
> patch hasn't received a good testing though".
Right, it never has been tested on macines with RTC. That was a fair
warning. :-)
> You don't have to be a god to figure out why I preferred a patch that
> had been tested, where the author was responding to comments and
> posting updated versions of his patch in the period leading up to the
> merge window, over that.
Unfortunately, I didn't have time to try pusing it into every -rc1 since
2.6.18 -- there has been experimental hrtimers patchset at that time with even
x86 stuff being unmerged to mainline, so the stuff could only be pushed into
that patchset last autumn. I was going to try addressing vDSO stuff, yet there
has been too much work aside of that. Still, I've answered the mails. :-)
>> I just wanted the reasons clarified and got what I wanted -- as I
>> thought,
>>the decision behind preferring patches was somewhat biased, nobody really
>>cared about code quality or just wasn't familiar with hrtimers enough to
>>judge
>>on the code quality...
> You really know how to persuade people to cooperate, don't you... :P
Well, I'm not persuading anybody, sine I don't believe that I can persuade
somebody to do my work, so had to just vainly complain :-).
However, I agree that my complaints/ comments might have been somewhat
rash and unjust -- Tony's patches are *not* that bad after all. :-)
The only thing I'm still unusre about is that deterministic accounting.
Could you point me at the patch which deals with this (at least for System 390
:-)?
> Paul.
WBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
