[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101008230451.GB10975@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 00:04:51 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@...il.com>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
linux-main <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Arnd Hannemann <arnd@...dnet.de>,
Han Jonghun <jonghun79.han@...il.com>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, Hemant Pedanekar <hemantp@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow, but warn, when issuing ioremap() on RAM
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:37:10PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> People have been discussing them, but you can't expect a perfect
> solution to pop up within one release cycle, specially when people
> have real issues to deal with.
Two release cycles. It was queued for the previous release, was posted
to the mailing list, was de-queued, and then re-added for the last merge
window.
That's not no warning - that's almost six months.
http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20100408.094818.d6854bd5.en.html
So what you're telling me is that in six months, not one driver has been
touched to address this issue? So, if no one in that time has done any
work on this, then what use is it going to be making the kernel issue
a warning instead?
So, since this has been known about for six months to the day, I completely
fail to see how making this a warning instead will create the necessary
motivation for the issue to be addressed.
--
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