Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Implement clockevents driver for powerpc

From: Sergei Shtylyov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:11:31 +0400

Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Sergei Shtylyov writes:

>>    And now you have incomplete read_persistent_clock() implementation for 

> I don't see anything incomplete about it.  If you do, feel free to
> post a patch.

    The xtime_lock is still grabbed by time_init()

>>example, god knows why it was preferred to mine -- well, it also implemented 

> Your most recent post of your patch to implement read_persistent_clock
> was in May -- five months ago -- and you said this about it: "This

    Right, the most recent was in May but that was only a recast of the
October version (i.e. year old) -- that patch got somehow dropped from later
the -rt patches IIRC.

> patch hasn't received a good testing though".

    Right, it never has been tested on macines with RTC. That was a fair 
warning. :-)

> You don't have to be a god to figure out why I preferred a patch that
> had been tested, where the author was responding to comments and
> posting updated versions of his patch in the period leading up to the
> merge window, over that.

    Unfortunately, I didn't have time to try pusing it into every -rc1 since 
2.6.18 -- there has been experimental hrtimers patchset at that time with even 
x86 stuff being unmerged to mainline, so the stuff could only be pushed into 
that patchset last autumn. I was going to try addressing vDSO stuff, yet there 
has been too much work aside of that.  Still, I've answered the mails. :-)

>>    I just wanted the reasons clarified and got what I wanted -- as I thought, 
>>the decision behind preferring patches was somewhat biased, nobody really 
>>cared about code quality or just wasn't familiar with hrtimers enough to judge 
>>on the code quality...

> You really know how to persuade people to cooperate, don't you...  :P

    Well, I'm not persuading anybody, sine I don't believe that I can persuade 
somebody to do my work, so had to just vainly complain :-).
    However, I agree that my complaints/ comments might have been somewhat 
rash and unjust -- Tony's patches are *not* that bad after all. :-)
    The only thing I'm still unusre about is that deterministic accounting. 
Could you point me at the patch which deals with this (at least for System 390 
:-)?

> Paul.

WBR, Sergei