Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Alan is definitely right that we're likely to see more of the "non-PC" 
> > > > > platforms as x86 tries to do embedded.
> > > > 
> > > > I agree, but the way voyager is done is _not_ a good example for the
> > > > embedded x86 folks who will probably start to send in their scoop in
> > > > the foreseable future.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not fundamentally against bringing Voyager back, but it 
> > > > needs to go through a useful patch submission and review process 
> > > > and not by forcing voyager wreckage into our code base.
> > > 
> > > Ok, thanks. This was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear. 
> > > It does sound like the Voyager tree is doing things I myself 
> > > wouldn't approve of as a maintainer, so I can't really say that 
> > > I'm upset by the x86 maintainers then not pulling it.
> > 
> > I also take back the "it's obsolete" and "it didnt even build" 
> > portion of my NAK - that was overboard as Alan and you pointed it 
> > out.
> > 
> > I think we can work out something and a clear(er) platform driver 
> > interface abstraction with a thin cross section to generic x86 code 
> > will be helpful to a lot more than just Voyager.
> > 
> > In fact we have implemented that largely and it went upstream in 
> > 2.6.30, via the massive changes around this bit:
> > 
> >   6bda2c8: x86: remove subarchitecture support
> > 
> > This is what _already_ happened to other (ex-)subarchitecture code: 
> > visws, numaq were frequent trouble spots too, and with the 
> > x86-quirks model they basically vanished from our regression lists.
> > 
> > So it's a successful model in practice, and if Voyager is done in a 
> > similar way we wont see many Voyager problems in the future either.
> 
> OK, so this is an acceptable compromise for me too.
> 
> What I think now is needed (from me) are three patch sets:
> 
> 1. The final subarchitecture cleanups
> 2. The quirk model/smp ops additions
> 3. The voyager put back.

Yes, that looks fine.

You can have them in a single series for convenience if you want to 
(it's probably easier for you to test that way) - but 3 separate 
series are fine too, no strong preference either way - as long as 
the internal structure and details follows the ordering and 
parameters we outlined in previous mails.

	Ingo