[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <E87738D94A6AD54789B5B8D1BAEB06CC701ED3BA3E@azsmsx503.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2011 12:11:25 -0700
From: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
CC: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
"linux-next@...r.kernel.org" <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"stable@...nel.org" <stable@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: linux-next: build warningiIn Linus' tree
> Len, i'd *really* prefer it if patches changing arch/x86/ had a
> longer test time in linux-next than what you are gave it here.
I agree 100%, and I will do better in the future.
This was very difficult timing for a merge window for me.
> these patches were contentious when you last posted
> them as an RFC to lkml ...
The idle cleanup patches were contentious when I posed them
because my original proposal deleted a bunch of code right away.
Alan convinced me that the community doesn't move that fast,
and that we should wallow in the swill for a while longer before
deleting. Others volunteered to test the latest upstream kernel
on APM hardware, giving APM's presence in the upstream kernel a life line.
So all I did was add the recommended feature-removal's and warnings
for the stuff which obviously should go. But if you see some of
your favorite bits on the chopping block, you have at least
6 months to make a case for them:-)
thanks,
-Len
--
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