From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.23-rc2 1/2] define clk_must_disable() Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:46:41 -0700 Message-ID: <200708061646.41835.david-b@pacbell.net> References: <200708061111.03407.david-b@pacbell.net> <200708061338.08561.david-b@pacbell.net> <20070806214805.GE3360@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070806214805.GE3360@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Russell King Cc: Andrew Victor , Andrew Morton , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Monday 06 August 2007, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 01:38:08PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > > And since you asked for a build fix ... I have a hard time thinking > > that anything else could really be the "right fix". > > Do you have to drag every discussion right down into the shit pile? > Your message isn't even worth this response. Don't introduce four letter words then. You know the drill: good *technical* arguments are what should win. I agree it would have been easier if I had asked to merge this earlier; like for 2.6.18 as originally planned, or 2.6.22 ... sigh. It never got to the top of the priority list until that Makefile patch forced the issue; and merge windows are filled with stuff that's higher priority. Thing is, I've never been one to prefer short term hacks when a good long-term solution is available. In this case, that solution has been used for over 9 months now, and was presented more than once on LKML. Even now, there are no good technical counter-arguments. So I still think this is the "right fix".