Sergei Shtylyov writes:

    And now you have incomplete read_persistent_clock() implementation for 

I don't see anything incomplete about it.  If you do, feel free to
post a patch.

example, god knows why it was preferred to mine -- well, it also implemented 

Your most recent post of your patch to implement read_persistent_clock
was in May -- five months ago -- and you said this about it: "This
patch hasn't received a good testing though".

You don't have to be a god to figure out why I preferred a patch that
had been tested, where the author was responding to comments and
posting updated versions of his patch in the period leading up to the
merge window, over that.

    Well, that's up to you.  I take it you wouldn't accept a patch 
implementing auto-reload mode?

I already told you.  Show me numbers (real measurements showing that
it's better) and I'll consider it.

    There are. I'll have to send patches (it's not that I have time for this) 
but this is surely the fastest way to get things fixed (if I don't get ignored 
that is).

All of us only get stuff in by spending the time to develop patches
and posting them for comment.  Stop whinging.

    I just wanted the reasons clarified and got what I wanted -- as I thought, 
the decision behind preferring patches was somewhat biased, nobody really 
cared about code quality or just wasn't familiar with hrtimers enough to judge 
on the code quality...

You really know how to persuade people to cooperate, don't you...  :P

Paul.