Re: + clocksource-increase-initcall-priority.patch added to -mm tree

[Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>]

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/