From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S934762AbXGKXRc@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S934762AbXGKXRc (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:17:32 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757986AbXGKXRZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:17:25 -0400
Received: from xenotime.net ([66.160.160.81]:46065 "HELO xenotime.net"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP
	id S1755896AbXGKXRY (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 11 Jul 2007 19:17:24 -0400
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:21:12 -0700
From: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>
Subject: Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
Message-Id: <20070711162112.5c876b95.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
In-Reply-To: <1184189959.12353.150.camel@chaos>
References: <20070710013152.ef2cd200.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
	<p734pkbyuu4.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
	<20070711174252.GA16793@elte.hu>
	<20070711140244.b08ae4d9.rdunlap@xenotime.net>
	<1184189959.12353.150.camel@chaos>
Organization: YPO4
X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.2 (GTK+ 2.8.10; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:39:19 +0200 Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> Randy,
> 
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 14:02 -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote: 
> > I certainly haven't.  I can barely keep up with reading about 1/2
> > of lkml emails.  And in my non-scientific method, I think that we
> > are suffering from both (a) more patch submittals and (b) fewer
> > qualified reviewers (per kernel KLOC) than we had 3-5 years ago.
> > 
> > I don't see how you can expect Andrew to review these or any other
> > specific patchset.  Do you have some suggestions on how to clone
> > Andrew?
> 
> Ingo was talking to Andi, the x86_64 maintainer, not to Andrew.

Yep, I see that when I re-read it.  I apologize.

---
~Randy
*** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***