From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751534AbZDTAkO (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:40:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751212AbZDTAj7 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:39:59 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:38938 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750960AbZDTAj6 (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Apr 2009 20:39:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 02:38:57 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jeff Garzik Cc: James Bottomley , LKML , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model Message-ID: <20090420003857.GA10438@elte.hu> References: <1239724300-16371-1-git-send-email-James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> <20090414165722.GD2089@elte.hu> <20090414180832.GA25692@elte.hu> <49E79B1E.9090405@garzik.org> <20090419233518.GA765@elte.hu> <49EBB9D0.6060307@garzik.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49EBB9D0.6060307@garzik.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Regarding the new x86/Voyager submission: architecture or core >> kernel level code always has a higher barrier of entry than >> driver code for a number of good reasons: > > No, my point is that it is blatantly unfair to remove code, then > reset standards for inclusion far, far higher than at which it > left the tree. Oh, i'm all for including new code optimistically. (in fact i'm probably a bit over-inclusive) But i'm not at all for easily re-including known problematic code that has been removed. Including known problematic code under the same standard as removal i'd call 'very stupid'. IMO it is a fundamentally good engineering practice to learn from past experience and to learn from past mistakes and to require a higher standard if an old standard failed to produce an acceptable result first time around. _Especially_ so for such an extremely obsolete piece of hardware with a single upstream user+developer and a dismal upstream track record ... We really have to learn to say 'no' at a certain point ... I dont care about Voyager that much - but i do care about not doing stupid things intentionally in the code i (co-)maintain. Anyway, as i said it in the previous mail - in the end it's up to Linus and he can override our NAK if we are wrong about it. Ingo