Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

[Paul Moore]

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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.

-- 
paul moore
www.paul-moore.com