linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [50/50] x86_64: Remove fpu io port resource

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]

Message-ID: <20071002153740.5c77922f@the-village.bc.nu>
Date:	Tue, 2 Oct 2007 15:37:40 +0100
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc:	Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, patches@...-64.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [50/50] x86_64: Remove fpu io port resource

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 07:30:12 -0400
Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:

> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > So far I still maintain i386 and x86-64. If Thomas wants to take both
> > over completely he can do that; but I won't bother handling any patches i didn't 
> > write then anymore.
> 
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> Didn't we all agree that x86 and x86-64 are going to be merged?
> 
> If yes, isn't it logical to avoid patches that extend the separation?
> 
> This is just basic playing-well-with-others fundamentals.

No Andi is right - he didn't agree. He made it clear he didn't agree and
even at the kernel summit from what he said I'd assumed this meant from
2.6.24 we'd simply have a different maintainer team for x86-32/64.

We all (except Andi) agreed it was going to be merged and Andi made his
position clear - Thomas and Ingo just need to update the MAINTAINERS file
and get on with it.

Alan
-
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/