Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 11 Oct 2021 07:26:45 -0700
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Kai-Heng Feng <kai.heng.feng@canonical.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5.4 51/52] x86/hpet: Use another crystalball to evaluate
 HPET usability
Message-ID: <20211011072645.02d5ce1b@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <YWREvi4n/PweejB1@kroah.com>
References: <20211011134503.715740503@linuxfoundation.org>
        <20211011134505.483011431@linuxfoundation.org>
        <20211011065931.78965dff@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
        <YWREvi4n/PweejB1@kroah.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 11 Oct 2021 16:05:50 +0200 Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > FWIW I've never seen any problems prior to Paul's rework of bad clock
> > detection in 5.13. Backports to 5.4 and 5.10 are not necessary.  
> 
> Given that the hardware is still just as broken in those older kernels,
> why not?

Just filling in with extra context, I did say "FWIW" ;)

I don't use 5.4 nor do I understand the consequences of bad hpet 
well enough to comment on risk vs reward here. By consequences 
of bad hpet I mean whether its going to impact anything beyond
the tsc -> hpet fallback (which doesn't impact <5.13).