Re: linux-next: manual merge of the tiny tree with the tip tree

[John Stultz]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Today's linux-next merge of the tiny tree got a conflict in
>> kernel/time/Makefile between commit fd866e2b116b ("time: Rename
>> udelay_test.c to test_udelay.c") from the tip tree and commit
>> d1f6d68d03ea ("kernel: time: Compile out NTP support") from the tiny
>> tree.
>
> So I think a timer subsystem commit d1f6d68d03ea with this
> magnitude of linecount increase:
>
>  Signed-off-by: Catalina Mocanu <catalina.mocanu@xxxxxxxxx>
>  [josh: Handle CONFIG_COMPAT=y.]
>  Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>  ---
>   drivers/pps/Kconfig        |  2 +-
>   include/linux/timex.h      | 15 +++++++++++++--
>   init/Kconfig               | 10 ++++++++++
>   kernel/compat.c            |  8 ++++++--
>   kernel/sys_ni.c            |  4 ++++
>   kernel/time/Makefile       |  3 ++-
>   kernel/time/ntp_internal.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   kernel/time/posix-timers.c |  2 ++
>   kernel/time/time.c         |  2 ++
>   kernel/time/timekeeping.c  |  2 ++
>   10 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> at minimum needs the ack of timer folks, before it can be
> committed to Git. Or is the tiny tree plan to submit all
> patches to the appropriate subsystem or gather acks, before
> sending it upstream?

Yea.  From first glance d1f6d68d03ea looks fairly broken.

Returning 0 for ntp_tick_length() (which should be the current tick
length in NTP_SCALE_SHIFT shifted ns), seems like it would cause major
timekeeping problems.

thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/