On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 02:03:03PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Frederic Weisbecker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Rik van Riel <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 16:27 +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote: > > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > > > > > > > While reviewing your 2nd patch, I thought about these cleanups. > > > > > Perhaps > > > > > the first one could be merged into your patch. I let you decide. > > > > > > > > I'm not convinced we want to merge cleanups and functional > > > > changes into the same patch, given how convoluted the code > > > > is/was. > > > > > > > > Both of your patches look good though. > > > > > > > > What tree should they go in through? > > > > > > -tip I suspect. So my plan was the following, this series of yours: > > > > > > [PATCH v3 0/4] sched,time: fix irq time accounting with nohz_idle > > > > > > ... looked almost ready, it looked like as if I could merge v4 once you > > > sent it. > > > > > > Plus Frederic submitted these two cleanups - looks like I could merge > > > these on top > > > of your series and have them close to each other in the Git space. > > > > > > And I do agree that we should keep these cleanups separate and not merge > > > them into > > > patches that change functionality. > > > > > > If your series is expected to be risky then we could make things easier > > > to handle > > > later on if we switched around things and first made low-risk cleanups > > > and then > > > any changes/fixes on top - do you think that's necessary in this case? > > > > I personally think that none of this is low-risk material. Perhaps we can > > gather > > the whole in the same tree? I can resend the series proper with my patches > > inside if you like. And I have yet to review the last patch of the series. > > Sure, we can do it like that, for tip:timers/nohz.
Ok, I'll base it on tip:sched/core, right?
