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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3119857.QuQfKUSRGs@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date:	Sun, 10 Jul 2016 03:26:49 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
Cc:	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
	"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 Saturday, July 09, 2016 11:44:47 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/7/8 21:22, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Fine to me.
> 
> >
> > Having a maintainer per file would be farcical, I really do not
> 
> Agree, but having three of us in maintainer entries in MAINTAINERS
> file will help the patches be reviewed correctly with more eyes.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Fair enough. What I'm concern most is land ACPI on ARM64 soundly,
> let's do that :)
> 
> OK, let's back to this patch set, Fuwei already prepared a new version
> of patches [1] (moving acpi_gtdt.c to drivers/acpi/arm64/ and add a
> maintainer entries patch), shall we review and comment on this patch
> set for now, or just let Fuwei send out the new version?

Frankly, I don't see a point in discussing the old version only if a new
one is available already.  Post it, please.

Thanks,
Rafael