Re: Polling (was Re: [PATCHSET 2/2] implement PMP support, take 6)

[Mark Lord <liml@rtr.ca>]

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.
> 
> 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.

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.

Cheers