From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752617Ab1BLTLq (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:11:46 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:61746 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752235Ab1BLTLl (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:11:41 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] UniCore32 ISA support for linux-2.6 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2011 20:11:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.38-rc2+; KDE/4.5.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Guan Xuetao , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <026101cbca54$b95489e0$2bfd9da0$@mprc.pku.edu.cn> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201102122011.34664.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:IIvHtcZ5r3ad2bYCgMwWp428oNv9LNO2nUSBIVGiIku E0BaMh1P/iNxZOd0mkrtHlPRG53a4QELCXSvYoAUJBNxe3PqaB cP8DjNFpzwt9hmb+8x+aoKbBCzxLX/Wq/Mg3jkNGnLjoUiybKH J4P2aPEGcULhbs2Ggz7tfR7MWzWSfN1B7bq9MqpEZULG2y9h7d ELTNcmKUiN/aYfeOy4+6Q== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 12 February 2011 18:51:32 Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Guan Xuetao wrote: > > Hi Linus, > > Could you please pull from: > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/epip/linux-2.6-unicore32.git for_linus > > to add unicore32 support for linux-2.6. > > I'm not going to do it during the 38 cycle, but if this has has gotten > ack's from people like Arnd, and all the commentary from other people > (like the "the ptrace.c file looks like it was copied from arm, wants > attribution" etc), I can pull it in the 39 cycle. I think it should still be posted once more to linux-arch/linux-kernel as emails. I gave an Acked-by to a number of patches that are harmless and that I didn't have any comments on. There are a number of patches that I reviewed more thoroughly, and Guan did a good job of cleaning up the code based on that. I believe it's basically good to go into 2.6.39 once they go over the mailing list in the current version. I'll reply with a Reviewed-by tag to the patches that I reviewed and that now look ok when that happens. There are a few remaining issues from the review, which can probably be addressed in a later version. For instance, I suggested the use of a flattened device tree for enumerating the nondiscoverable SoC devices, which should help long-term maintainance, but is not essential. I should probably have been clearer about the timing for merging. While I must have mentioned it at some point, there were a lot of things I needed to explain about the process, so it probably got lost. > Arnd - who else was involved in the reviews? Is there somebody who > should have been involved and wasn't? A few people commented on specific patches, but I don't think anyone besides me looked at all of it. Greg and others reviewed the device drivers, so I did not bother with those. I don't know enough about the signal handling code to do a good review, and I tried to get Al Viro involved at some point, but didn't get his attention. Arnd