Re: 2.6.29 -mm merge plans

Andrew Morton
2009-01-06T23:19:58Z

(cc's added)

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:57:44 -0500
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 12:43:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > linuxpps-core-support.patch
>
> looks generally good, but the comments should get a little loving.
> Please remove the stupid filenames that always get out of sync in
> the top of file comments, and make the documentation of exported
> symbols kernel-doc instead of it's weird own format.
>
> Does checkpatch.pl still not catch these things?
>
> Also the ioctl certainly should be an unlocked_ioctl and not the
> old BKL-locked variant. The !uarg checks in the ioctls can go,
> copy_to/from_users does this automatically.
>
> pps.h shoulkd be split into one header only defining the
> kernel<->userspace ABI, and a kernel-internal one. That way
> also the conditional includes can go away.
>
> > pps-documentation-programs-and-examples.patch
>
> Once again this stuff is in and utterly wrong place where it can't
> easily be package for distros. ppsfind belongs into util-linux and
> needs a proper mangage, ppsldisc is not nessecary but ldattach in
> util-linux needs to grow support for N_PPS instead, and ppstest
> should probably go into util-linux in a more polished version, too.
>
> > pps-userland-header-file-for-pps-api.patch
>
> This one is utterly wrong. It provides what should be a userspace
> library as inlines in a kernel header.
>
> Please do a proper libpps library package.

Well that's a drop-it-all-and-start again scale of thing.

Rodolfo, do you have sufficient information here?