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. thanks -john