From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 02 16:57:16 PST
From: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (Michael Sokolov)
Message-Id: <0203210057.AA15679@ivan.Harhan.ORG>
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs
Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org
List-Id: <linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org>


Mark A. Greer <mgreer@mvista.com> wrote:

> I see three options:
>
> a) Do it the same was as we're going to do it in 2.5
>
> [...]
>
> b) Do a more advanced bi_rec scheme (like benh's proposal)
>
> c) Do mininimum necessary in 2.4; do it "right" in 2.5

I vote for doing 'c' now and keeping it unchanged for 2.5, 2.6, 2.10, 3.0, and
the eternity.

> Can we focus on this question so we can stop going in circles?  Besides if we
> reach a concensus in a "few days" we can take MS' $50.  :)

Then we have to agree on how many days is a few. And remember, the count
started yesterday at 16:53 PST. Also you have to have not only a consensus, but
a working patch counter to mine, otherwise you have to push mine and I keep my
$50.

MS

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/