On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:35:13 +0100
Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 09:08:13 +0100
> > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > Today's linux-next merge of the tip tree got a conflict in
> > > > fs/proc/uptime.c between commit c3e0ef9a298e ("[S390] fix cputime
> > > > overflow in uptime_proc_show") from the cputime tree and commit
> > > > 3292beb340c7 ("sched/accounting: Change cpustat fields to an array") from
> > > > the tip tree.
> > > >
> > > > I fixed it up (I think - see below) and can carry the fix as necessary.
> > > >
> > > > Generally, you guys seem to be working a little at cross purposes ...
> > >
> > > Agreed.
> > >
> > > Martin, could you please send Peter and me a pull request of the
> > > current cputime bits merged on top of tip:sched/core? Those bits
> > > should go upstream via the scheduler tree.
> > >
> >
> > All of it including "[S390] cputime: add sparse checking and
> > cleanup" or just the fix for uptime ?
>
> I suspect we can take it all if it's all scheduling/time
> related, and add new patches to sched/core to keep it all
> concentrated in a single tree?
Ok, will do. Just one question: are you sure that you want the cpustat array
to be u64 instead of cputime64_t? The content of the cpustat array is defined
by the architecture semantics of cputime64_t, for CONFIG_VIRT_CPU_ACCOUNTING=y
this is not a jiffy counter. If the array is u64 we won't get the sparse
checking when reading from cpustat.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
