From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760288AbYEFBnX (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 21:43:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756686AbYEFBnK (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 21:43:10 -0400 Received: from gateway-1237.mvista.com ([63.81.120.158]:54209 "EHLO gateway-1237.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756500AbYEFBnI (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 May 2008 21:43:08 -0400 Subject: Re: Preempt-RT patch for 2.6.25 From: Daniel Walker To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Ingo Molnar , Steven Rostedt , Sven-Thorsten Dietrich , Remy Bohmer , LKML , RT , Jon Masters In-Reply-To: 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> <1210032701.17132.98.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 18:43:04 -0700 Message-Id: <1210038184.17132.100.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 03:30 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 5 May 2008, Daniel Walker wrote: > > 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. > > Get it. Dropping it means bitrot. > > The responsible maintainers keep that (maybe stale) code at least in > sync as far as the obvious fixups are concerned. > > Your way of chosing the least effort approach and justifying it with > handwaving arguments is just disgusting. Can you stop with these comments. Lets try to resolve this in civil way. Daniel