linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: cleanup a bit omap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:30:33 -0700
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
	Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@...ia.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"George G. Davis" <gdavis@...sta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: cleanup a bit omap_wdt.c

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> [080922 01:00]:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 06:45:42PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Review rarely happens all at once, unless very few people look at
> > the code.  Discouraging review is *extremely* strange.
> 
> I'm not discouraging review.  I'm saying that making inappropriate
> comments isn't helpful.
> 
> Yes, your comments are right, but are they appropriate to getting
> the OMAP watchdog drivers updated in mainline, or are they more
> appropriate in a general sense to all watchdog drivers, and therefore
> should be separate from that task?
> 
> > > My point is that we currently have a BIG problem, and that is the OMAP
> > > fork being so far out of line with mainline, it isn't funny.
> > 
> > I call it a "branch" myself; "fork" sounds confrontational.
> 
> Call it what you want.
> 
> > When more of the arch/arm/* core bits merge -- like the clock and
> > power domain updates ISTR you wanted to hold back -- then the rest
> > starts to make sense upstream.
> 
> I never said that - you're twisting my words as normal.
> 
> > Yes, there are two unresolved issues in patch #1 which you seem
> > to have successfully buried with your flamage.  Easy fixes, just
> > strike a line and truncate a path.  The sort of thing that often
> > gets queued in the MM tree as a "fixup" and then merged into a
> > main patch.
> 
> Yet again you use confrontational language, inflaming this discussion.
> 
> Okay, I give up.  Folk here can carry on struggling to get their code
> into mainline with endless reviews and getting fed up with having to
> constantly rework the code over and over again.

Hey, please don't give up. You two easily get caught into infinite
mail loops, it's not necessarily omap related ;)

> Clearly my views aren't welcome.

Not true, we _really_ appreciate your comments and help. Same goes for
Dave.

Tony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/