Re: [PATCH 00/12] Increased clocksource validation and cleanups (v4)

[Ingo Molnar]

* John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So here is another round of this series, which is the result of
> earlier discussions with Linus and his suggestions around
> improvements to clocksource validation in the hope we can more
> easily catch bad hardware.
> 
> There's also a few cleanups Linus suggested as well as a few I've been
> meaning to get to for awhile.
> 
> I tried in address all the feedback that had been given, adding
> the checks behind CONFIG_DEBUG_TIMEKEEPING.  I also sorted out a
> sane way to print rate-limited warnings if we see cycle deltas that
> are too large, or if they look like small underflows.
> 
> I'd like to get this queued into -tip soon so it can get as much
> testing in -next as possible.
> 
> If there are any objections or feedback, I'd love to hear it!
> 
> New in v4:
> * Lots and lots of typo corrections and minor cleanups suggested
>   by Ingo.
> * Dropped "Remove clocksource_max_deferment()" patch
> * Added "Rename __clocksource_updatefreq_*..." patch
> * I realized one of the patches (Improve clocksource watchdog
>   reporting) didn't have a proper cc list, so while it was on lkml
>   folks may not have reviewed it before.

So I've applied them with some changes to tip:timers/core, please look 
at the commit notifications for details. Any outstanding review 
feedback can be addressed as delta patches on top of this I think, 
none of my observations were show-stoppers.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/