From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/5] xen: maintain an accurate persistent clock in more cases Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:01:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20130628150158.GA5035__13382.7518359341$1372431862$gmane$org@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <1372329348-20841-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: LKML , John Stultz , David Vrabel , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 03:14:42PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, David Vrabel wrote: > > These series fixes the above limitations and depends on "x86: increase > > precision of x86_platform.get/set_wallclock()" which was previously > > posted. > > So I'd like to merge that in the following way: > > I pick up patches 1-3 and stick them into tip timers/for-xen and merge > that branch into timers/core. When picking up 1/6, I'll drop the xen > part of that, so timers/core will not hold any xen specific bits. > > Then the xen folks can pull timers/for-xen and apply the xen specific > stuff on top. Wouldn't it be easier for you to pick the "xen part of that" as well? I am OK with you doing that and it all going through your tree. But if it is easier for you to do the way you said - I can do that too. Just tell me when to pull timers/for-xen > > Thanks, > > tglx > >