Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock BOOTTIME

From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
	Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Mark Salyzyn <salyzyn@android.com>,
	Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>,
	Kevin Easton <kevin@guarana.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock BOOTTIME
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 19:41:35 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803011936200.1391@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzV8Q20vL83xa+1UKzeQ0w-SAksCDxJD4szALRDCSUZ2w@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > This really needs lot of testing, documentation updates and more input from
> > userspace folks to make a final decision.
> 
> Honestly, I don't think we'd get the testing this kind of change needs
> except by just trying it.
> 
> I'm willing to merge this in the 4.17 merge window, with the
> understanding that if people end up reporting issues, we may just have
> to revert it all, and chalk it up to a learning experience - and add
> the appropriate commentary in the kernel code about exactly what it
> was that depended on that MONO/BOOT difference.

Fair enough. So we maybe just merge the first two patches and merge the
cleanups and consolidation patches when we feel good enough.

I surely can queue the whole lot in next, but from PTI the experience I
know how good the test coverage is. 4.14.stable would be the ideal testing
ground. /me runs fast and hides

> One non-technical thing I would ask: use some other word than
> "conflate". Maybe just "combine". Or better yet, "unify".
> 
> "Conflate" technically and historically means the same thing as
> combine, but has very much gathered a side meaning of "confuse".
> 
> So yes, "conflate" is indeed about mixing or combining, but it's
> typically used in the sense of a *bad* combination or mixing. So
> "trying to conflate two issues" means "trying to mix two issues that
> are not the same into one".
> 
> So "unify" and "conflate" mean both the same thing and almost exactly
> the opposite at the same time.
> 
> And yes, you will find dictionaries (and linguists) that hold purely
> to the old meaning. As always, there are fogeys that can't get over
> the fact that meanings meander and change.

I'm old enough to have learned that conflate means unify or combine, but
I'm still not old enough to be stubborn about it :)

Thanks,

	tglx