From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1763615AbYEFAL6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 20:11:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755656AbYEFALp (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 20:11:45 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:14653 "EHLO gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755648AbYEFALo (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 20:11:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25 From: Daniel Walker To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Steven Rostedt , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Remy Bohmer , LKML , RT , Jon Masters In-Reply-To: <20080505234743.GA11433@elte.hu> References: <1210003265.17132.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1210004376.17132.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1210007084.17132.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1210013938.17132.55.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1210025532.17132.82.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080505234743.GA11433@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 17:11:41 -0700 Message-Id: <1210032701.17132.98.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-3.fc8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 01:47 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker wrote: > > > I think dropping ports (temporarily) is perfectly reasonable. There is > > no reason to hamper forward development just to keep old architecture > > ports in the tree. > > You are missing the point: a lot of people (those who wrote the brunt of > the -rt tree and who maintained it over the years and who maintain it > today) think it's not reasonable and have stated it very clearly to you > that it's a bug. Keeping things alive is not preventing forward > development. That has always been my intention. I've never said the arch code would be permanently gone. > Since it's code that you regard stale it shouldnt be all that hard to > fix it up - in general it's much easier to fix a bug than to talk it out > of existence, even if you disagree with a maintainer about how > significant a bug is. It shouldn't be hard, but it's too much to do all in one go. It's better from my perspective to do it in parts, given that there is significant refactoring to do per arch, if we solidify x86 then we can better refactor the other architectures. Better to do the split up once vs. many times. Not to mention this has not been discussed until now. My bisect tree was all but ignored until just recently. > This issue is clearly not central to your refactoring (it cannot be, > it's all about stale code), so by inflexibly insisting on your opinion > against the (well-explained) opinion of the maintainers you'll just > waste their time and make it more difficult for them to work with you, > for no good reason. I'm simply making sure their argument is widely known and potentially discussed on list instead of in a back room.. Daniel