[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170706233111.xa4ky5zob6rhf3uu@techsingularity.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2017 00:31:11 +0100
From: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
To: Paul Moore <paul@...l-moore.com>
Cc: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Richard Guy Briggs <rgb@...hat.com>,
Tony Jones <tonyj@...e.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-audit@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> >
> > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>
> >
> > As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how
> > it was before my patch. Since nobody saw any problems before my patch,
> > lower granularity should be fine.
>
> Agreed. Mel's patch basically restores the previous behavior while
> keeping the 64-bit timestamp size.
>
> Considering where we are at with the merge window, I'm going to merge
> this into the audit/next branch and not send this up to Linus during
> the current window; while the patch is small, I like to give things
> some time in linux-next before sending them up.
That's completely fine, I knew the timing was off. Thanks for picking it
up.
--
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists