Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750732AbWCCVQ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:16:57 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750737AbWCCVQ5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:16:57 -0500 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:3985 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750732AbWCCVQ4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:16:56 -0500 Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 13:15:14 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: john stultz Cc: zippel@linux-m68k.org, anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp, clameter@engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, ak@muc.de Subject: Re: [PATCH] simplify update_times (avoid jiffies/jiffies_64 aliasing problem) Message-Id: <20060303131514.39e01dcb.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <1141417048.9727.60.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <20060302.230227.25910097.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20060303.114406.64806237.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> <20060302190408.1e754f12.akpm@osdl.org> <1141417048.9727.60.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1417 Lines: 30 john stultz wrote: > > But again, you're concerns are valid, there appears to be a lack of > enthusiasm in the community both for and against the changes. And I > understand, as I've got lots of other things I need to do as well, and > reviewing a large change like this can take some time that I'm sure > folks are short on. > > Maybe I should work on selling it more, I just have been at it for so > long with this patch set that I feel I'm boring folks with the constant > and repetitive "provides robust behavior in the face of lost ticks and > enables other development like high-res timers and realtime" schtick. > I'm not particularly worried from the will-it-break-the-kernel POV. Any remaining problems will affect a relatively small number of machines and once the proverbial million monkeys start running it, things will be shaken out of the current x86 implementation. So we can do this, but the question is do we _want_ to do it? If the arch maintainers can look at it from a high level and say "yup, I can use that and it'll improve/simplify/speedup/reduce my code" then yes, it's worth making the effort. It's a hard one. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/