On Fri, 14 Jun 2019, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 01:15:23PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, 30 May 2019, Michael Kelley wrote: > > > Vincenzo -- these changes for Hyper-V are a subset of a larger patch set > > > I have that moves all of the Hyper-V clock/timer code into a separate > > > clocksource driver in drivers/clocksource, with an include file in > > > includes/clocksource. That new include file should be able to work > > > instead of your new mshyperv-tsc.h. It also has the benefit of being > > > ISA neutral, so it will work with my in-progress patch set to support > > > Linux on Hyper-V on ARM64. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/5/27/231 > > > for the new clocksource driver patch set. > > > > Grrr. That's queued in hyperv-next for whatever reasons. > > I queue up our future pull requests there to give them some soaking in > -next. What? You queue completely unreviewed stuff which touches two other subsystems to let it soak in next? > > Sasha, can you please provide me the branch to pull from so I can have a > > common base for all the various changes floating around? > > I'll send you a unified pull request for these changes. Which has not materialized yet. TBH, I'm pretty grumpy about those clocksource changes. Here is the diffstat: MAINTAINERS | 2 arch/x86/entry/vdso/vclock_gettime.c | 1 arch/x86/entry/vdso/vma.c | 2 arch/x86/hyperv/hv_init.c | 91 --------- arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h | 6 arch/x86/include/asm/mshyperv.h | 81 +------- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c | 2 arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 1 drivers/clocksource/Makefile | 1 drivers/clocksource/hyperv_timer.c | 322 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/hv/Kconfig | 3 drivers/hv/hv.c | 156 ---------------- drivers/hv/hv_util.c | 1 drivers/hv/hyperv_vmbus.h | 3 drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c | 42 ++-- include/clocksource/hyperv_timer.h | 105 +++++++++++ While the world and some more people have been CC'ed on those patches, neither the clocksource nor the x86 maintainer have been. When I gave Vincenzo the advise to base his code on that hyper-v branch, I expected that I find the related patches in my mail backlog. No, they have not been there because I was not on CC. Folks, please stop chosing Cc lists as you like. We have well established rules for that. And please stop queueing random unreviewed patches in next. Next is not a playground for not ready and unreviewed stuff. No, the hyper-v inbreed Reviewed-by is not sufficient for anything x86 and clocksource related. After chasing and looking at those patches, which have horrible subject lines and changelogs btw, I was not able to judge quickly whether that stuff is self contained or not. So no, I fixed up the fallout and rebased Vincenzos VDSO stuff on mainline w/o those hyperv changes simply because if they are not self contained they will break bisection badly. I'm going to push out the VDSO series later today. That will nicely break in combination with the hyper-next branch. Stephen, please drop that and do not try to handle the fallout. That stuff needs to go through the proper channels or at least be acked/reviewed by the relevant maintainers. So the hyper-v folks can rebase themself and post it proper. Yours grumpy, tglx
