From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: What is the right practice to get new code upstream( was Fwd: [patch] a simple hardware detector for latency as well as throughput ver. 0.1.0) Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:20:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20120613152045.81ab66d9.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:52065 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753229Ab2FMWUq (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jun 2012 18:20:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Luming Yu Cc: LKML , Peter Zijlstra , tglx@linutronix.de, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, jcm@jonmasters.org, linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , torvalds@linux-foundation.org On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:57:02 +0800 Luming Yu wrote: > I need to know what the right practice is to get your attention to > accept a new tool upstream like this one. Seems that you have some good feedback from Arnd to be looking at. I'm usually the guy for mysterious misc stuff such as this, so please cc me on future revisions. The name "hw_test" and "HW_TEST" is too vague. The topic "testing hardware" is very broad, and this module only touches a small fraction of it, so please think up a far more specific name.