From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: Polling (was Re: [PATCHSET 2/2] implement PMP support, take 6) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:25:36 +0200 Message-ID: <200709282225.36913.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <1190521193410-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> <46FD306C.3050205@gmail.com> <46FD5DE1.8000206@rtr.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.175]:46260 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752837AbXI1UW1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:22:27 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so1544472ugc for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:22:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <46FD5DE1.8000206@rtr.ca> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Lord Cc: Jeff Garzik , Tejun Heo , alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org On Friday 28 September 2007, Mark Lord wrote: > Tejun Heo wrote: > > Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>> Aieee... Another merge delay. I wish the review process proceeded a bit > >>> swifter. The patchset has been around literally for years now and > >>> submitted for review six times if I have the take number right. :-( > >> Well the vast majority of the patches are in, what five out of six > >> original patchsets? > > > > Yeah, I'm frustrated mainly because I've been telling people that > > mainline will probably have PMP support when 2.6.24 comes out and it > > seems we'll miss the merge window again. Oh, well... > > > >> Sorry I didn't catch the polling requirement beforehand, it was not > >> really clear from a quick read. > > > > ->pmp_read/write stuff is something which I've been meaning to change > > anyway. When developing the PMP code, PMP register access while frozen > > seemed necessary but now I think we can be just as safe without it. I > > was thinking about changing it after merge because the current code > > received a lot of testing and I didn't want to destabilize it right > > before merging. This is an excellent point for merging the PMP code as it is currently and doing revamp later. PMP patchset in the current form has got quite a lot of testing in -mm and "last minute" changes have a tendency to bring up some nasty surprises. > > I'll be back home mid next week. I'll try to re-test and re-submit the > > changes ASAP. > > Jeff, seeing as Tejun's commitment is never in doubt here, > I really believe we should go with the existing PMP patchset > for 2.6.24 (unless the respin happens quickly enough). > > This functionality is way overdue, and we shouldn't be impeding it > as long as we have been. It is way, way overdue... > Tejun will definitely continue to rework the changes you've asked for > in time for the next release, but let's not hold things up unreasonably here. Seconded. Bart