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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:22:01 +0100
From:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Cc:	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>,
	Fu Wei <fu.wei@...aro.org>, 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

On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 03:58:04PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

[...]

> > 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 think the reasoning is the same, to avoid confusion and avoid stepping
on each other toes it is best to have a single gatekeeper (still
multiple maintainer entries to keep patches reviewed correctly), if no
one complains I will do that and a) provide ACKs (I will definitely
require and request Hanjun and Sudeep ones too appropriately on a per
patch basis) and b) send you pull requests.

Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not
expect that amount of traffic for drivers/acpi/arm64 therefore I
really doubt there is any risk of me slowing things down.

Does this sound reasonable ? Comments/complaints welcome, please
manifest yourselves.

Thanks,
Lorenzo