Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

> Peter, Ingo, Andrew, > > Do any of you have an objection to these patches? > > Which tree should I merge them through? > > I am happy to resubmit them against any tree, just let > me know where you want the patches to go. I suppose I can try and stuff them in -tip. I picked up this lot which

Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

Peter, Ingo, Andrew, Do any of you have an objection to these patches? Which tree should I merge them through? I am happy to resubmit them against any tree, just let me know where you want the patches to go. I suppose I can try and stuff them in -tip. I picked up this lot which seems

Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2014 05:21 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote: > >> Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I >> seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() >> locklessly, and apparently correctly. > > >> >> Oleg points out that

Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/19/2014 05:21 PM, Andrew Theurer wrote: Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() locklessly, and apparently correctly. Oleg points out that the

Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

> Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, > I seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() > locklessly, and apparently correctly. > > Oleg points out that the monotonicity alone is not enough of a > guarantee, but that should probably be attacked separately,

Re: [PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() locklessly, and apparently correctly. Oleg points out that the monotonicity alone is not enough of a guarantee, but that should probably be attacked separately, since

[PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() locklessly, and apparently correctly. Oleg points out that the monotonicity alone is not enough of a guarantee, but that should probably be attacked separately, since that issue

[PATCH 0/3] lockless sys_times and posix_cpu_clock_get

Thanks to the feedback from Oleg, Peter, Mike, and Frederic, I seem to have a patch series that manages to do times() locklessly, and apparently correctly. Oleg points out that the monotonicity alone is not enough of a guarantee, but that should probably be attacked separately, since that issue