From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 14:59:58 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: Changing update_mmu_cache() Message-ID: <20050225225958.GR15648@holomorphy.com> References: <1109047997.5327.70.camel@gaston> <20050222090741.B16786@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050222100858.27d05a86.davem@davemloft.net> <20050225201538.B27842@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050225134322.43274a9a.akpm@osdl.org> <20050225224809.F27842@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050225224809.F27842@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> To: Russell King Cc: Andrew Morton , davem@davemloft.net, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 10:48:09PM +0000, Russell King wrote: > I'm sorry, I'm completely at the end of my rag over this. I, for > one, can't operate with keeping up with the mainline kernel while > having these kinds of invasive patches outstanding for 4+ months > with zero help, and little prospect of them getting merged. > The same happened with the DMA mmap API. With that, I've now > resorted to merging the ARM version of it and said "bugger the > other architectures." > What it basically comes down to is that a stable kernel series is > not the place for development. It's obvious we're trying to meet > opposing demands with the existing development model, and it just > isn't working. Well, it isn't for me at least. Well, my efforts on the DMA mmap() issue got completely thwarted by holy penguin pee, so it wasn't for lack of trying. -- wli