Re: [PATCH] audit: Reduce overhead using a coarse clock

On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd(a)arndb.de&gt; wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 2:11 PM, Mel Gorman <mgorman(a)techsingularity.net&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman(a)techsingularity.net&gt; >> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd(a)arndb.de&gt; > > Acked-by: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel(a)gmail.com&gt; > > As already Arnd pointed out, your patch should be fine as that is how > it was before my patch. Since nobody saw any problems before my patch, > lower granularity should be fine. Agreed. Mel's patch basically restores the previous behavior while keeping the 64-bit timestamp size. Considering where we are at with the merge window, I'm going to merge this into the audit/next branch and not send this up to Linus during the current window; while the patch is small, I like to give things some time in linux-next before sending them up.