From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758100AbXGHWoX (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:44:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756544AbXGHWoO (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:44:14 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:54945 "EHLO mailhub.stusta.mhn.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756210AbXGHWoN (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jul 2007 18:44:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:44:44 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , Ingo Molnar , Christoph Hellwig , Peter Zijlstra , Alan Cox Subject: Re: Please revert 21564fd2a3deb48200b595332f9ed4c9f311f2a7 Message-ID: <20070708224444.GU3492@stusta.de> References: <20070617214231.GA3588@stusta.de> <46760D87.2000502@goop.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <46760D87.2000502@goop.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 09:43:51PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > Adrian Bunk wrote: >... > > Andi forwarded it although the following people had already NAK'ed it: > > - Christoph Hellwig [1] > > - Peter Zijlstra [2] > > - Alan Cox [3] > > > > Considering that Andi forwarded it 2 days after he himself said a > > different solution was pending [4] I assume he mistakenly sent it for > > inclusion in your tree. > > > > We played with some ideas, but they all turned out way too ugly to live. Andi got some NAK's, said himself it will be solved differently, and two days later he submits the NAK'ed patch into Linus' tree. Was this a mistake that should be reverted at least for now because of this, or is silently doing the opposite of what you said you'd do how Linux development is expected to work today? > > Reverting is safe since it simply re-establishes the 2.6.21 status quo. > > Well, not really. It breaks any non-GPL module when CONFIG_PARAVIRT is > enabled, even though the same module would work fine otherwise. That's > a pretty large regression. >... The 2.6.21 status quo can by definition not be a regression compared to 2.6.21. > J cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed