On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 04:13:10PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote: > Noone's ignoring you. > > What we need to do is ensure that dynamic ticks is working properly on x86 > and > worth including before anything else. If and when we confirm this it makes > sense only then to try and merge code from the other 2 architectures to as > much common code as possible as no doubt we'll be modifying other > architectures we're less familiar with. At that stage we will definitely want > to tread even more cautiously at that stage.
dyntick has all the hallmarks of ending up another mess just like the "generic" (hahaha) irq stuff in kernel/irq - it's being developed in precisely the same way - by ignore non-x86 stuff. I can well see that someone will say "ok, this is ready, merge it" at which point we then end up with multiple differing userspace methods of controlling it depending on the architecture, but multiple differing kernel interfaces as well. Indeed, you seem to be at the point where you'd like akpm to merge it. That sets alarm bells ringing if you haven't considered these issues. I want to avoid that. Just because a couple of people say "we'll deal with that later" it's no guarantee that it _will_ happen. I want to ensure that ARM doesn't get fscked over again like it did with the generic IRQ crap. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
