All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
To: David Riley <davidriley@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	David Riley <davidriley@chromium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Add test to validate udelay
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 09:59:26 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLXuSXBXPyxoSeAPiCSfnHWoKev_ps32jSK_pntFo1_yrQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAASgrz2=NA96ZZe8GRfnZ_m2woLc=QaAizj6yVA8Jgbi-O3rfQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 4:41 PM, David Riley <davidriley@google.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if there were any comments to this patch or if it was
> picked up somewhere?

So I guess it got left in a bit of an ambiguous spot.  The basic point
of this test is to verify there is a sane counter time-based delay on
freq shifting systems. You've addressed my only false positive
concern, and so I'm not opposed to including it.

However, there was the following discussion of why this test was
wanted, and that was due to a system that didn't have a counter time
based delay (instead using the loop delay) which was running into
problems with cpufreq changes. That discussion wandered a bit, but the
consensus was "don't do that".

I sort of mixed the messages and associated that feedback with this
patch as well, so my apologies.

Just to be clear, it might be good to more clearly target this test as
a validation to ensure systems don't use those bad configs. So If you
want to resend with that extra context in the commit message, I'll go
ahead and queue it (looking at 3.17)

thanks
-john

      reply	other threads:[~2014-06-11 16:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-05-07  0:12 [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay David Riley
2014-05-07  0:12 ` [PATCH 1/2] kernel: time: Add udelay_test module " David Riley
2014-05-07  0:12 ` [PATCH 2/2] tools: add script to test udelay David Riley
2014-05-14 22:49   ` Doug Anderson
2014-05-07  0:25 ` [PATCH 0/2] Add test to validate udelay John Stultz
2014-05-07  4:19   ` Doug Anderson
2014-05-07 17:02     ` David Riley
2014-05-07 18:10     ` John Stultz
2014-05-07 18:32       ` Doug Anderson
2014-05-07 22:46         ` John Stultz
2014-05-07 23:54           ` Doug Anderson
2014-05-14 22:30 ` [PATCH v2 " David Riley
2014-05-14 22:30   ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kernel: time: Add udelay_test module " David Riley
2014-05-14 22:30   ` [PATCH v2 2/2] tools: add script to test udelay David Riley
2014-06-09 23:41   ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Add test to validate udelay David Riley
2014-06-11 16:59     ` John Stultz [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=CALAqxLXuSXBXPyxoSeAPiCSfnHWoKev_ps32jSK_pntFo1_yrQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=davidriley@chromium.org \
    --cc=davidriley@google.com \
    --cc=dianders@chromium.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.