Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:16:38 +0200, Andi Kleen said:

(Note - I'm just a usually-confused crash test dummy here...)

> Well I spent a lot of time making the x86-64 timing code work
> well on a variety of machines; working around a wide variety
> of hardware and platform bugs. I obviously don't agree on your description
> of its maintenance state. 

I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect here.  If you spent all that time making it
work, how come the guys who developed the patch are saying you didn't provide
any feedback about the patchset?

> > What contribution do we have from you instead? A week before the .23 
> 
> I told him my objections privately earlier. Basically i would
> like to see an actually debuggable step-by-step change, not a rip everything 
> out.

Odd, I looked at the patchset fairly closely a number of times, as I was
hand-retrofitting the -rc[1-4] versions onto -rc[1-4]-mm kernels, and it looked
to *me* like it was a nice set of 20 or so step-by-step changes (bisectable
and everything - I got to do that once trying to figure out which one I botched).
Was there something in there that I missed?

Attachment: pgp2qrJUrhebU.pgp
Description: PGP signature