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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 11:44:47 +0800 From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> To: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, "linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, "linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org, Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>, Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>, G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>, Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>, wei@...hat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>, Suravee Suthikulanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>, Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>, Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>, sudeep.holla@....com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > [...] > >>> Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some >>> sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above. >> >> To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do >> that, but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen. >> That may be one person or all of you, whatever you decide. > > I think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping > on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still > multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no > one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely > require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per > patch basis) and b) send you pull requests. Fine to me. > > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes. > expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I > really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down. > > Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please > manifest yourselves. Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly, let's do that :) OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version? [1]: https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/topic-gtdt-wakeup-timer_upstream_v7_devel Thanks Hanjun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists