On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 12:35:44PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 7:16 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 6:42 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> Sigh. So you're going to make me write a separate patch that moves it over? > >>> > >>> We've written it already, Imre posted the link to the old discussion: > >>> > >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/10/187 > >>> > >>> But if the first attempt doesn't sufficiently stick I tend to chase > >>> the patches any more. But if you want to resurrect this I could ping > >>> Imre and ask him to pick it up again or you could rebase his patches. > >> > >> Well, last I saw the initial patch was buggy, no? I don't think I saw > >> it being resubmitted. > > > > I didn't see your reply in that thread nor in the v2 follow up at > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=136854294730957&w=2 Maybe I missed > > it, but response seems to have been lukewarm overall. > > Ok, I wasn't cc'ed on the v2, thanks for the pointer. There's some > general lukewarmness to all things jiffies, since getting rid of them > has been a long term goal forever. But overall that patch set seemed > ok (though I'm not a fan of macro generation of functions). But minor > details.. btw have you seen the other fallout from the ktime->nsec conversion in i915? http://www.spinics.net/lists/intel-gfx/msg56445.html Is this just the inaccuracy of nsec_to_jiffies (and why it explicitly states that this is for the scheduler only) or is there some bigger fish in there? Insight very much appreciated. Thanks, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
