Re: [PATCH V1 Resend 1/5] tick-common: fix wrong check in tick_check_replacement()

On 16 April 2014 00:12, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de wrote:

B1;3202;0c

What does this mean ??

On Tue, 15 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:

...

tick_check_replacement() returns if a replacement of clock_event_device is possible or not. It does this as the first check:

  if (tick_check_percpu(curdev, newdev, smp_processor_id()))
          return false;

This looks wrong as we are returning false when tick_check_percpu() returned true. Probably Thomas forgot '!' here in his commit: 03e13cf5e ?

Come on. You can do better changelogs.

:(

"This looks wrong" is definitely not a good description of the problem.

Either you know WHY it is wrong, then you say so. If not, then you can send an RFC.

I fixed the changelog up this time.

Thanks, will take care of such stuff in future.