From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>,
linux-next@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:33:21 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906100831120.6847@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1244647703.4109.45.camel@mulgrave.site>
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> Pretty much, yes. The problem isn't in the voyager code, it's in the
> residual subarchitecture clean up. As the x86 tree evolves, that's what
> keeps conflicting mainly because adjacent areas get altered. Once
> that's upstream, the voyager piece should be a smooth ride.
Quite frankly, in that case I think that in order to get Voyager merged,
we should just get the subarchitecture code cleaned up _first_.
The thing is, I do agree with Ingo that Voyager is not _nearly_ important
enough to be rammed through in some ugly manner. And if the plan is to get
it all done cleanly in the end anyway, then there is certainly no hurry
what-so-ever in getting Voyager merged _before_ it's possible to merge it
cleanly.
Linus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-10 15:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-06-08 16:10 Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree James Bottomley
2009-06-08 23:28 ` Tony Breeds
2009-06-10 14:45 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09 9:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-06-09 13:49 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09 20:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 20:33 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09 21:18 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 23:41 ` Alan Cox
2009-06-09 23:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 0:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 0:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 1:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 14:38 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 15:28 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:33 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2009-06-10 16:19 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 16:42 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 14:23 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-10 15:23 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 15:39 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 16:02 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 16:53 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-11 1:35 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-06-11 1:39 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=alpine.LFD.2.01.0906100831120.6847@localhost.localdomain \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-next@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox