On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 09:30:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * 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?
I personally think that none of this is low-risk material. Perhaps we can gather the whole in the same tree? I can resend the series proper with my patches inside if you like. And I have yet to review the last patch of the series. Thanks.
