On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 17:58, Russell King wrote: > 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.
Ok I'll make it clearer. We don't merge x86 dynticks to mainline till all are consolidated in -mm. Con - 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/
