From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764126AbZEHXDb (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 19:03:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756889AbZEHXDW (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 19:03:22 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:43831 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753118AbZEHXDW (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 May 2009 19:03:22 -0400 Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 15:59:35 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Alan Cox Cc: udovdh@xs4all.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rodolfo Giometti , Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: LinuxPPS status? Message-Id: <20090508155935.3e88e49e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20090508112722.040e99ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> References: <4A0406C3.7000507@xs4all.nl> <20090508112722.040e99ee@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 8 May 2009 11:27:22 +0100 Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, 08 May 2009 12:17:39 +0200 > Udo van den Heuvel wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > Can anybody please give a summary of the things needing work before > > LinuxPPS can go into the kernel? > > Andrew posted something in february but are his objections still valid? > > > > Can we just fix the final bits and have it in the kernel whenever the > > first occasion comes along? > > If you are getting no feedback just submit it next merge window. Either > its offended nobody or they've forgotten to notice - in both cases > submitting it will have the desired effect. As far as I know the master version is sitting in -mm. This thing has gone on for so long and with such large intervals between activity that I've forgotten what the outstanding issues are, if any. I have a note here that Christoph had requested that the pps header file be split in some fashion (user and kernel?) but that doesn't appear to have happened in my copy of the patch. Probably it would be best to start again, resend the patch with 1000 cc's, re-review and actually get it over the line.