* Rik van Riel <r...@redhat.com> 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?
Thanks,
Ingo
