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

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 14:54:12 PDT, Chris Wright said:
> * Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu (Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu) wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> I think Andi's referring to the existing x86_64 code, which gets
> replaced by the patchset in question.

<Takes a closer look at the patches>  D'Oh! :)  Yeah, the -rc4 version I'm
looking at is like a dozen 1-3K patches setting up and cleaning up, and then
one monster 65K patch doing the clockevents conversion, then another 6 or 8
small ones.

Yeah, that one big patch really doesn't look separable to me.  But as I said,
I'm just a crash test dummy here. :)

Andrew - how do you feel about keeping this in the -mm tree until Linus,
Andi, Ingo, and Thomas get on the same page (which may be around the 2.6.24
merge window, by my guesstimate)?

Attachment: pgpMpWq7Yw0D1.pgp
Description: PGP signature