Re: Regression in v5.0-rc1 with autosuspend hrtimers

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 7:05 PM Vincent Guittot
<vincent.guittot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 18:26, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 05:32:31PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 17:07, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 09, 2019 at 03:12:25PM +0100, Vincent Guittot wrote:
> > > > > Please keep all thread list when replying :-)
> > > >
> > > > Ahh, sorry for that...
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > On Wed, 9 Jan 2019 at 14:33, Ladislav Michl <ladis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > I agree, but it doea all the magic correctly, so you won't need
> > > > > > to touch that code is ktime_t changes (I know, unlikely..)
> > > > >
> > > > > But the current implementation doesn't care of any changes in ktime_t
> > > > > as it uses raw ns
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough, so let's go back to:
> > >
> > > This one looks good for me
> >
> > Lets split is for 'comments fix' patch, which was just send and 'the rest'.
> > Now, 'the rest' can either be v2 of your "PM/runtime: Fix autosuspend_delay on
> > 32bits arch" or will wait for 5.1. You decide :)
>
> I don't really mind.
>
> Rafael,
> Do you prefer to only take the fix for u64 casting problem or do you
> prefer to also take the optimization below in one single patch ?

The casting problem is a bug and the optimization is next release
material in my view.  Please send the optimization separately.