From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux-next: 20090929 - android driver build breaks Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2009 17:22:30 -0700 Message-ID: <20091009002230.GB28982@suse.de> References: <20090929140404.dfb2c5f5.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20090929152027.GC4373@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20091008224725.GA22949@kroah.com> <20091008232825.GA540@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:53607 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757291AbZJIAcU (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Oct 2009 20:32:20 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Kamalesh Babulal , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, LKML , sfr@canb.auug.org.au, Andrew Morton , Arve Hjonnevag , San Mehat On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 04:48:23PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Thu, 8 Oct 2009, Greg KH wrote: > > > > What are you specifically referring to? Kamalesh provided a patch[*] that > > > fixes this particular compile error, which you said you were queueing. > > > > Hm, I did say I was queueing it, but I still can't figure out if this is > > needed for the 2.6.32 tree. Is it? > > > > Yes, 28b83c5 was merged during the merge window for 2.6.32 so this needs > to be pushed for the staging tree if it's not ripped out. Ok, I'll dig it up, thanks. > > > If it's a criticism of the staleness of the Android code within the > > > staging tree or no recent activity, then we should probably loop in some > > > Android developers to find our about their plans. I've added them to the > > > cc. > > > > They know all about this and agreed that the code should be dropped for > > 2.6.33 if no one sends me patches. If someone does, then I will remove > > my 'delete the android code' patch in the staging tree. > > > > I don't work with Android, but the "no support from Google" phrase caught > my attention :) It seems like this isn't necessarily about support or > raised issues not being addressed, but rather about a lack of progress > being made developmentally or a general lack of interest in upstream > inclusion. Yes, that is exactly correct. thanks, greg k-h