From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/5] xen: maintain an accurate persistent clock in more cases Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 17:12:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1372329348-20841-1-git-send-email-david.vrabel@citrix.com> <20130628150158.GA5035@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130628150158.GA5035@phenom.dumpdata.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: LKML , John Stultz , David Vrabel , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 28 Jun 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > 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. I can do that, if that's not conflicting with other xen/x86 stuff outside of timers/core. Thanks, tglx