On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 14:37:57 +0000 Matthew Brost <matthew.br...@intel.com> wrote:
> > Looks like you are changing the behavior here (unconditional -> > > conditional timestamp update)? Probably something that should go in a > > separate patch. > > > > This patch creates a race so this check isn't need before this patch. > With that I think it makes sense to have all in a single patch. If you > feel strongly about this, I can break this change out into a patch prior > to this one. It's probably fine to keep it in this patch, but we should definitely have a comment explaining why this check is needed.
