Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: + clocksource-increase-initcall-priority.patch added to -mm tree | From | Daniel Walker <> | Date | Sun, 08 Oct 2006 16:35:43 -0700 |
| |
On Mon, 2006-10-09 at 00:53 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 15:13 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 23:38 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't see that behaviour on my machines and nobody complains about > > > that. I don't care about stale comments. Point me to a bug report > > > instead of your perception of what's optimal and not. > > > > Let both do this. Lets discuss empirical behavior. Otherwise we aren't > > making any progress. > > Go, grep the LKML archives and let those who had problems test your > modifications. Come back when they confirm that it does not change > anything.
This is why I want this to go into -mm .. To flush out the corner cases that it's impossible for me to find on my own.
> You want to change behaviour of the current code, so it's your job to > verify that it does not break anything.
I have, within my ability to do so.
> I have been there and done that with the ARM interrupt code > http://www.linutronix.de/index.php?page=testing > > I know what I'm talking about.
I think you know what your talking about, and I respect your opinion.. I think you have some points, that I will follow up on. However most of what your saying comes off to me like, "Reverse _all_ your changes!" , "Makes this patch set go away for 2 months", and I don't understand where that is coming from.
Daniel
- 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/
| |