On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 11:36 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> * Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 8:33 AM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@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.
>> One non-technical thing I would ask: use some other word than
>> "conflate". Maybe just "combine". Or better yet, "unify".
> Ok, I have edited all the changelogs accordingly (and also flipped around the
> 'clock MONOTONIC' language to the more readable 'the MONOTONIC clock' 
> variant),
> the resulting titles are (in order):
>  72199320d49d: timekeeping: Add the new CLOCK_MONOTONIC_ACTIVE clock
>  d6ed449afdb3: timekeeping: Make the MONOTONIC clock behave like the BOOTTIME 
> clock
>  f2d6fdbfd238: Input: Evdev - unify MONOTONIC and BOOTTIME clock behavior
>  d6c7270e913d: timekeeping: Remove boot time specific code
>  7250a4047aa6: posix-timers: Unify MONOTONIC and BOOTTIME clock behavior
>  127bfa5f4342: hrtimer: Unify MONOTONIC and BOOTTIME clock behavior
>  92af4dcb4e1c: tracing: Unify the "boot" and "mono" tracing clocks
> I'll push these out after testing.

I'm still anxious about userspace effects given how much I've seen the
current behavior documented, and wouldn't pushed for this myself (I'm
a worrier), but at least I'm not seeing any failures in initial
testing w/ kselftest so far.


Reply via email to