[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:0.128 / U:3.896 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site