On 6 December 2012 19:36, Amit Kucheria <amit.kuche...@linaro.org> wrote: > Even if that is the case, I'm afraid I don't quite like the way this was > done. IMHO, you shouldn't just revert bits of another author's patches that > you don't agree with. > > If there are issues regarding the the patches from Vincent, I'd do the > following things in order of priority: > 1. Prove to him that the race exists, preferably with a reproducible test > case > 2. Give him a chance to convince you otherwise > 3. Share test results that show bad things happen as a result of some code > 4. Ask _him_ to separate out that bit from the original patch so you can > only pick the bits you like > > I haven't seen this happen. All I've seen is one side claim it can happen > and the other claim that it can't. *shrug* > > Viresh, as an experienced maintainer, I hope you see the value of this > approach rather than just pull in the tree. > > I realise we're all under pressure here. So let's take a deep breath, step > back and do it the right way.
First of all i must admit, i haven't followed the discussion closely, as this part of kernel is still rocket science for me :) Secondly, what you said is correct Amit. But, i must say there has been a long time since the last time release happened and all this must have been sorted out in that time both from Linaro and ARM side. And i didn't saw any effort on that. Only when i came back to sort out issues in my tree, this issue is still highlighted. Now, getting so close to release and making a big change, that will eventually affect the core part we are working on is not a great idea. But we still have some time for a meaningful discussion to happen and one party to agree. Both can't be correct. I need to send the pull request by Monday and so whatever is required to be done, must be done by tomorrow evening. -- viresh _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
