Re: [PATCH 0/2] sched/cputime: Deltas for "replace VTIME_GEN irq time code with IRQ_TIME_ACCOUNTING code"
From: Ingo Molnar
Date: Fri Jul 08 2016 - 08:03:36 EST
* Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 16:27 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > > > Hi Rick,
> > > >
> > > > While reviewing your 2nd patch, I thought about these cleanups.
> > > > Perhaps
> > > > the first one could be merged into your patch. I let you decide.
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced we want to merge cleanups and functional
> > > changes into the same patch, given how convoluted the code
> > > is/was.
> > >
> > > Both of your patches look good though.
> > >
> > > What tree should they go in through?
> > -tip I suspect. So my plan was the following, this series of yours:
> > [PATCH v3 0/4] sched,time: fix irq time accounting with nohz_idle
> > ... looked almost ready, it looked like as if I could merge v4 once you sent it.
> > Plus Frederic submitted these two cleanups - looks like I could merge these on top
> > of your series and have them close to each other in the Git space.
> > And I do agree that we should keep these cleanups separate and not merge them into
> > patches that change functionality.
> > If your series is expected to be risky then we could make things easier to handle
> > later on if we switched around things and first made low-risk cleanups and then
> > any changes/fixes on top - do you think that's necessary in this case?
> I personally think that none of this is low-risk material. Perhaps we can gather
> the whole in the same tree? I can resend the series proper with my patches
> inside if you like. And I have yet to review the last patch of the series.
Sure, we can do it like that, for tip:timers/nohz.