Re: [PATCH] binfmt_flat: minimum support for theBlackfin relocations

Robin Getz
2007-09-20T06:08:18Z

On Wed 19 Sep 2007 23:54, Paul Mundt pondered:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 11:42:53PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 9/19/07, Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:55:25AM +1000, David McCullough wrote:
> > > > Jivin Robin Getz lays it down ...
> > > > > On Tue 18 Sep 2007 04:09, Bryan Wu pondered:
> > > > > > This just adds minimum support for the Blackfin relocations,
> > > > > > since we don't have enough space in each reloc. The idea
> > > > > > is to store a value with one relocation so that subsequent
> > > > > > ones can access it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adding the other appropriate maintainers. for h8, m32r, sh and
> > > > > v850.
> > > >
> > > > Looks fine to me, obviously impacts the existing arches very
> > > > little. Can't see why it shouldn't get included,
> > >
> > > I find it a bit disconcerting that blackfin already depends on this
> > > in-tree without there being any earlier discussion on making these
> > > changes.
> >
> > not really ... this patch was posted before but was lost in the
> > shuffle ... and i'm not quite sure what you mean by "depends on" ...
> > if you want to use the FLAT file format on a Blackfin processor, then
> > this patch is needed, but that isnt the only file format that works on
> > the Blackfin port as we also have FDPIC ELF
> >
> What I mean by "depends on" is that for what you are attempting to
> patch, your architecture has an in-tree dependency on something that hasn't
> been discussed.

"not been discussed" because it was sent to lkml -
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/22/60
- and it got missed/left on the floor during the arch/blackfin inclusion
(which was huge), not because of any deliberate malicious intent on our part
to mislead or try to get this in now by doing an end around as you are
implying.

Our mistake for not poking everyone/resending things sooner/before
arch/blackfin was included. Bryan will try to make sure that doesn't happen
again (right Bryan?) - like he is now, by poking/resending things, and making
sure that the appropriate maintainers (like you, if we are changing things
you maintain) are included. (which is what I think the problem was).

If we can focus on the technical merits of things, rather than how we got
here - which I agree sucks - was our mistake - we are sorry - we will try to
make sure that it doesn't happen again - I think it would be time/effort
better spent.

-Robin

BTW - does anyone know Miles Bader's current email address? There isn't one
listed in MAINTAINERS - and he is still listed for the NEC V850?