linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch

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:	Thu, 7 Jul 2016 23:21:17 +0800
From:	Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	Graeme Gregory <gg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	rruigrok@...eaurora.org, harba@...eaurora.org,
	Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
	Timur Tabi <timur@...eaurora.org>,
	G Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
	Al Stone <al.stone@...aro.org>, Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
	wei@...hat.com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ana.be>,
	Suravee Suthikulanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
	Leo Duran <leo.duran@....com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@...aro.org>, sudeep.holla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT
 support in arm_arch_timer

Hi Rafael,

On 7 July 2016 at 21:58, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> On Thursday, July 07, 2016 02:40:23 PM Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
>> [+Sudeep]
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > > >> So is this a documentation issue in which case Fu Wei can add that to
>> > > >> the file to explain its limited to ARM64. Or we could even rename the
>> > > >> file acpi_arm64_gtdt.c
>> > > >>
>> > > >> It seems a pity as the comment on this series were minors to block
>> > > >> things on a filename/location.
>> > > >
>> > > > Let me repeat what I said above:
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm mostly concerned about how (and by whom) that code is going to be
>> > > > maintained going forward.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is not about documentation, it is about responsibility.
>> > > >
>> > > > Honestly, I don't think I'm the right maintainer to apply the patch
>> > > > introducing this code and then handle bug reports regarding it and so
>> > > > on.  That has to be done by somebody else.
>> > >
>> > > I'm working on ACPI for years and upstreamed the ARM64 ACPI core
>> > > support (with lots of people's help), I'm willing to maintain the ARM64
>> > > ACPI code under drivers/acpi/ if no objections.
>> >
>> > OK
>>
>> I would ask you please to add Sudeep and myself for the ARM64 specific
>> ACPI code maintainership too.
>
> OK

For this, it seems we have a decision now, so I will post  v7 tomorrow
following this decision:
drivers/acpi/arm64/acpi_gtdt.c

I think that is a very good idea, I also believe Hanjun can maintain it well.

>
>> > Can the ARM64-specific code go under drivers/acpi/arm64/ then, for clarity?
>>
>> It can, but I do not understand why x86 should not have a separate
>> directory for all x86 specific stuff too then.
>
> It should. :-)
>
> It doesn't have it ATM, but that doesn't mean it's all OK.
>
> Well, some of the x86-specific stuff goes into arch/x86/kernel/acpi/, so it
> has something at least.
>
> In any case, IMO, if some code is only used by one architecture, it should be
> clear that this is the case, and moving that code into a separate directory
> helps to achieve that.
>
>> Anyway let's avoid these petty arguments, I agree there must be some
>> sort of ARM64 ACPI maintainership for the reasons you mentioned above.
>
> To avoid confusion on who's going to push stuff to Linus, I can do that,
> but it must be clear whose ACKs are needed for that to happen.  That may be
> one person or all of you, whatever you decide.
>
> I can take pull requests too if that's more convenient.
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
>



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat