linux-kernel - Re: Adding remoteproc/rpmsg to linux-next

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

Date:	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 15:22:20 +0000
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	"Ohad Ben-Cohen" <ohad@...ery.com>
Cc:	"linux-arm" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
	Brian Swetland <swetland@...gle.com>,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Adding remoteproc/rpmsg to linux-next

On Wednesday 21 December 2011, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:33 AM, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 16:55:27 +0200 Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you please add the following remoteproc tree to linux-next ?
> >>
> >> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ohad/remoteproc.git for-next
> >
> > I have added that from today.
> 
> Would you like rpmsg/remoteproc to go through arm-soc or do you prefer
> me to send a pull request directly to Linus ?
> 
> If you prefer the former (IIRC you told me you might consider it in a
> random ELCE hallway conversation :) then I'll send you a pull request.
> 
> I'm happy either way.

Either way works for me, too. Right now, I would tend to let you send it
to Linus directly because I haven't looked at the latest versions of the
code for some time. While I generally trust you to do the right thing
there, I'm not 100% comfortable to vouch for it in the way that an Ack
or pull would imply without doing a more detailed review of the latest
code.

I know that I promised you that review, but haven't gotten to it, sorry.
I've done a 5 minute review now and it absolutely looks good to go in
as far as I can tell, so I certainly don't object to you sending it
to Linus for 3.3. If you think you need more Acks or if there are other
reasons to have it go through arm-soc, please tell me and I'll try harder
to find the time for a proper review.

	Arnd
--
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/