From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161209AbeCATKz (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:10:55 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:52219 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161124AbeCATKw (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:10:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 20:10:49 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Linus Torvalds cc: LKML , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Steven Rostedt , John Stultz , Petr Mladek , Mark Salyzyn , Prarit Bhargava , Sergey Senozhatsky , Dmitry Torokhov , Kevin Easton , Michael Kerrisk , Jonathan Corbet Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT patch 0/7] timekeeping: Unify clock MONOTONIC and clock BOOTTIME In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20180301163331.987775783@linutronix.de> User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (DEB 202 2017-01-01) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner 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 That said, at least the people who are asking for that should provide testing results _before_ this gets applied or merged upstream. Thanks, tglx