[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100520003641.00618acb.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 00:36:41 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Luca Barbieri <luca@...a-barbieri.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/atomic changes for v2.6.35
Hi,
On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:24:00 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
>
> On 05/19/2010 04:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > <boilerplate>
> > It's a pity this wasn't raised/resolved between its detection in linux-next and
> > before it entered mainline...
> > </boilerplate>
>
> As far as your boilerplate is concerned, I think Linus made it clear at
> the Kernel Summit that is it not the obligation of x86/ARM/PowerPC to
> slow down to not break the smaller architectures; it's the
> responsibility of those architecture maintainers to keep up. Sorry.
I don't think this reply has anything to do with the sentiments expressed
by Geert above. My interpretation of his comments is just that it is a
pity noone noticed the problem while it was only in linux-next and
reported it widely (like on linux-arch) so something could have been done
before it all Linus' tree. There was no suggestion of slowing the pace
of development.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@...b.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists