linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

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]

Date:	Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:24:11 +0000
From:	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
To:	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>
Cc:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	"guohanjun@...wei.com" <guohanjun@...wei.com>,
	"hanjun.guo@...aro.org" <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@....com>,
	"graeme.gregory@...aro.org" <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
	"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>,
	Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinc@...eaurora.org>,
	"suravee.suthikulpanit@....com" <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
	"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 00/21] Introduce ACPI for ARM64 based on ACPI 5.1

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:53PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2015 19:39:27 +0000 , Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:17:27AM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > Not only that, Sudeep has a patch to consolidate DT and ACPI SMP code,
> > > I am working on it, I do not think it should be a blocking point, patch
> > > coming asap on top of your series.
> > 
> > Well, I don't really want to merge the series without those patches so I
> > do think it blocks the code from getting into mainline.
> 
> Really? It's a pretty minor duplication problem and it's been identified
> as something requiring refactoring to both the ACPI and DT code. It
> isn't at all dangerous. Why is this a blocking point?

Because I don't really see a valid excuse not to get this right first time
around. Lorenzo already has patches on top, so we just need a co-ordinated
review effort.

I wouldn't accept another patch series that needed minor rework (which by
its very nature is easily addressed), so why should ACPI be treated any
differently?

Will
--
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/