On 2017-07-06 16:25, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
On 2017-07-06 16:25, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
> >>
> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
> >
> >
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> >>
On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:25:48PM -0400, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
> >>
> >> Acked-by:
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
>>
>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
>
> Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani
>
> As already Arnd pointed out,
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman
> wrote:
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
>
> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani
As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how
it was before my patch.
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman
Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate
> > timestamp
> > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically
> > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.
>
> You
On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 09:23:55AM -0700, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> > The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate
> > timestamp
> > is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically
> > increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.
>
> You
> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp
> is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically
> increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.
You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably.
I was aware that
> The patch in question has no explanation as to why a fully-accurate timestamp
> is required and is likely an oversight. Using a coarser, but monotically
> increasing, timestamp the overhead can be eliminated.
You are right. I was trying to use ktime_get* functions preferably.
I was aware that
Commit 2115bb250f26 ("audit: Use timespec64 to represent audit timestamps")
noted that audit timestamps were not y2038 safe and used a 64-bit
timestamp. In itself, this makes sense but the conversion was from
CURRENT_TIME to ktime_get_real_ts64() which is a heavier call to record
an accurate
Commit 2115bb250f26 ("audit: Use timespec64 to represent audit timestamps")
noted that audit timestamps were not y2038 safe and used a 64-bit
timestamp. In itself, this makes sense but the conversion was from
CURRENT_TIME to ktime_get_real_ts64() which is a heavier call to record
an accurate
16 matches
Mail list logo