[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [tip:timers/core] timekeeping: Increase granularity of read_persistent_clock()
    Ingo Molnar writes:

    > Do you ask Linus to rebase the upstream kernel as well, if the
    > powerpc or x86 build happens to break? There's more than a dozen
    > such cases per development cycle triggering on my tests alone. If
    > not, why not?

    I see you pulling commits out of the tip tree quite often, when they
    have testing failures of various kinds. I presume that, like other
    maintainers, you have some branches that you try hard not to rebase
    and other testing branches that are quite volatile and get
    reconstructed frequently (though I don't know what branch names you
    use for them).

    I presumed that you wouldn't have put a commit that hadn't even passed
    basic build testing into one of your non-rebasing branches. That's
    why I assumed you could fold the fix into the original patch without

    > The thing is, we'll probably redo this portion of the timer tree as
    > i found other problems in testing, but generally the disadvantages
    > of a build breakage with a very small non-bisectability window has
    > to be weighed against the disadvantages of a rebase (which are
    > significant).
    > The equation does not automatically flip in favor of a rebase as you
    > seem to suggest - in fact it generally goes _against_ a rebase.

    In a stable, non-rebasing branch, sure. But putting untested patches
    into such a branch would be a bit silly, so I assumed you hadn't done
    that. :)


     \ /
      Last update: 2009-08-24 05:27    [W:3.680 / U:0.360 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site