On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:45:56 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:59:56 +0100
> > Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> [...]
> > @@ -110,34 +119,48 @@ static int do_account_vtime(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > int
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:17:28AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:59:56 +0100
> Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0100
> > Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > > On T
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 17:20:06 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 07:59:56AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0100
> > Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > The do_account_vtime function is called once per jiffy and once per task
> > > > switc
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 10:49:23AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > > But I am still not happy about the approach. What is the compelling
> > > reason for
> > > this change except for the "but it looks ugly"?
> >
> > The diffstat (600 lines removed). Also the f
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 07:59:56AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > Just because some code isn't too complex doesn't mean we really want to
> > keep it.
> > I get regular questions about what unit does cputime_t map to on a giv
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 07:59:56 +0100
Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:08:07 +0100
> > > Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > >
> > > Now it
* Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > But I am still not happy about the approach. What is the compelling reason
> > for
> > this change except for the "but it looks ugly"?
>
> The diffstat (600 lines removed). Also the fact that we have all these
> workarounds in the core code just for the speci
On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 15:47:02 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:08:07 +0100
> > Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry for the patchbomb, especially as I usually complain about
> > > these mys
On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 01:08:46PM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:08:07 +0100
> Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry for the patchbomb, especially as I usually complain about
> > these myself but I don't see any way to split this patchset into
> > standalone piece
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016 19:08:07 +0100
Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> I'm sorry for the patchbomb, especially as I usually complain about
> these myself but I don't see any way to split this patchset into
> standalone pieces, none of which would make any sense... All I can do
> is to isolate about 3 cl
I'm sorry for the patchbomb, especially as I usually complain about
these myself but I don't see any way to split this patchset into
standalone pieces, none of which would make any sense... All I can do
is to isolate about 3 cleanup patches.
So currently, cputime_t serves the purpose, for s390 and
11 matches
Mail list logo
