linux-kernel - Re: OMAP clock fast-forward: an introduction to six series

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]

Message-ID: <20090129162556.GA32148@atomide.com>
Date:	Thu, 29 Jan 2009 08:25:58 -0800
From:	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: OMAP clock fast-forward: an introduction to six series

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> [090129 00:31]:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 08:11:17AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:05:13AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > Hello Russell,
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 01:22:22PM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > > > Per rmk's preferences, some patches have been 'compressed.' That is, some 
> > > > > fix patches have been rolled into a single patch with the original.  To 
> > > > > ease cross-referencing with the linux-omap git tree, original commit IDs 
> > > > > have been inserted into the patch messages.  Also, what would have been an 
> > > > > extremely long series has been split into six smaller, cumulative, roughly 
> > > > > thematic patch series.  If requested, I would be pleased to simply send 
> > > > > one large series of the original, uncompressed patches.  Thanks to the git 
> > > > > and stgit authors and contributors: without those tools, this process 
> > > > > would have been nearly impossible.
> > > > 
> > > > Since this patch series was only really meant for me to do some follow-on
> > > > work on it (to merge it into my tree) is it really necessary to submit
> > > > this 70 patch series via slow email via several mailing lists?
> > > 
> > > I posted the patches for final review and upstream merging.
> > > 
> > > Not sure what the follow-on work is that you mention.  But if it's 
> > > additional development work, such as modifying the linux-omap clock code 
> > > to use your recent clkdev code, that should really be discussed 
> > > separately, and patches posted for comment to linux-omap, so the OMAP 
> > > community has a chance to test it first.  People on that list seem to be 
> > > pretty reasonable...
> > 
> > If that's what you thought I was offering, forget it.  I wasn't.
> 
> I'll expand on that.  When clockdomain and powerdomain support was added
> to the mainline kernel about six months ago, I specifically asked the
> question "Is this everything for this new code" and got told "yes".
> 
> I wanted to ensure that the new code I was merging was 100% up to date
> with mainline so we wouldn't have a constant drip of old patches to it.
> 
> A few weeks later I pulled the omapzoom tree, which contains tony's tree
> and diffed the new code, finding some unmerged patches which I added
> _before_ that stuff went to Linus.
> 
> Since then, I've asked Tony whether the clock code was 100% up to date and
> if not send me the patches.  No patches ever came forward.
> 
> So, with my work on OMAP first to sort out some of the utter crappyness
> in there (which Tony had accepted.)  Tony whinged about it clashing with
> your work, but still no clock patches from you or Tony were forthcoming.
> 
> Subsequent to that acceptance, and as a result of me getting utterly
> pissed off with waiting for something to happen, I converted OMAP over
> to use clkdev (so that OMAP can stop abusing the API and being used
> as a reason why new implementations should continue this abuse.)
> 
> Again, Tony whinged about the big merge problem that this was creating.
> So I made an offer to manipulate _your_ changes to apply with my changes.
> 
> That's the offer.  The offer is not to merge your code and then think
> about what to do with mine possibly in a year or two's time.  OMAP
> _is_ going to use the API correctly as soon as possible, no iffs or buts.
> 
> Not taking the offer means that you and Tony have to deal with the merging
> issues.  Accepting the offer means I do that work for you and publish the
> results back to you for your comment.
> 
> Your call.

To me it does not matter which way the stuff gets merged. We just need
to get it all merged.

If you guys can't get it merged and sorted out then it will all fall
down on me. And then I have to use tools no smaller than a sledgehammer
to merge it all, so the outcome won't be pretty!

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/