linux-kernel - Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 25 May 2007 13:20:20 +0200
From:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()

On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:12:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org> wrote:
> 
> > > please indicate that you've picked up my style cleanups, i dont want 
> > > to redo all this a few days/weeks down the line ...
> > 
> > It's done slightly differently now due to conflicting earlier changes, 
> > but the end result should be about what you intended. [...]
> 
> please send me your current sched-clock.c, i'll redo any remaining 
> cleanups.

It needs at least one new preliminary patch (to add on_cpu_single);
please get the series from 
ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches-2.6.22-rc2-git7-070525-1.tar.gz
You need at least tsc-unstable upto paravirt-add-a-sched_clock-paravirt
for everything

> But ... i find your approach curious, why didnt you just apply the 
> cleanups i sent? You clearly started working on this as a reaction to my 
> cleanup patches and to the bugfixes i sent ontop of the cleanup patches. 
> Your "I'll do this differently" approach is totally unnecessary from a 
> commit management point of view (this is new code after all and 
> will/should go upstream in a single clean chunk anyway), the only effect 
> this has is that that you are discouraging contributors like me from 
> contributing cleanups to the x86_64 tree.

Unfortunately right now it is a already a set of patches; e.g. due to 
the paravirt ops change. I can merge back the cleanup change; but
kept it separately due to your earlier complaint about not using
your patch. I think one hunk of your original one is still in there :-)

> so to me the impression is 
> that deep in yourself you are (subconsciously) not happy about others 
> contributing to the x86_64 tree. Please tell me that i'm wrong :-(

You're reading too much into that. Of course I value contributions
to x86-64, including cleanups. In general when I don't like it I complain
so saying nothing is approval (or me being not reading email, but that
doesn't happen that often) 

-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/