[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1210038184.17132.100.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 18:43:04 -0700
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sven@...bigcorporation.com>,
Remy Bohmer <linux@...mer.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>
Subject: Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25
On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 03:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 5 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> 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.
>
> Get it. Dropping it means bitrot.
>
> The responsible maintainers keep that (maybe stale) code at least in
> sync as far as the obvious fixups are concerned.
>
> Your way of chosing the least effort approach and justifying it with
> handwaving arguments is just disgusting.
Can you stop with these comments. Lets try to resolve this in civil way.
Daniel
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists