Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:11:41 -0700
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Daniel Walker <dwalker@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I think dropping ports (temporarily) is perfectly reasonable. There is
no reason to hamper forward development just to keep old architecture
ports in the tree.
You are missing the point: a lot of people (those who wrote the brunt of
the -rt tree and who maintained it over the years and who maintain it
today) think it's not reasonable and have stated it very clearly to you
that it's a bug. Keeping things alive is not preventing forward
development.
That has always been my intention. I've never said the arch code would
be permanently gone.
Since it's code that you regard stale it shouldnt be all that hard to
fix it up - in general it's much easier to fix a bug than to talk it out
of existence, even if you disagree with a maintainer about how
significant a bug is.
It shouldn't be hard, but it's too much to do all in one go. It's better
from my perspective to do it in parts, given that there is significant
refactoring to do per arch, if we solidify x86 then we can better
refactor the other architectures. Better to do the split up once vs.
many times.
Not to mention this has not been discussed until now. My bisect tree was
all but ignored until just recently.
This issue is clearly not central to your refactoring (it cannot be,
it's all about stale code), so by inflexibly insisting on your opinion
against the (well-explained) opinion of the maintainers you'll just
waste their time and make it more difficult for them to work with you,
for no good reason.
I'm simply making sure their argument is widely known and potentially
discussed on list instead of in a back room..
Daniel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Thomas Gleixner
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- References:
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Steven Rostedt
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Steven Rostedt
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Steven Rostedt
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Steven Rostedt
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Thomas Gleixner
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Daniel Walker
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- From: Ingo Molnar
- Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH 10/56] microblaze_v2: Generic dts file for platforms
- Next by Date: Re: [git pull] scheduler fixes
- Previous by thread: Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- Next by thread: Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|