From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <1244477423.4079.228.camel@mulgrave.site> <20090609202130.GA5291@elte.hu> <20090610004126.491508c9@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> <20090609235647.GE23846@elte.hu> <20090610003055.GA26492@elte.hu> <20090610010014.GA28345@elte.hu> <1244644726.4109.30.camel@mulgrave.site> <1244647703.4109.45.camel@mulgrave.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:38466 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753367AbZFJPdq (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:33:46 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1244647703.4109.45.camel@mulgrave.site> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: James Bottomley Cc: Ingo Molnar , Alan Cox , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org 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