Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Chris Simmonds
On 06/04/12 21:59, Ricardo Salveti wrote: On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Ricardo Salveti wrote: On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Wookey wrote: The fundamental question really is 'are we a distro or not'? If linaro is not a distro then no-one should b

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Ricardo Salveti
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Wookey wrote: >> > The fundamental question really is 'are we a distro or not'? If linaro >> > is not a distro then no-one should be expecting stable releases - w

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Nicolas Pitre
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Ricardo Salveti wrote: > On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Wookey wrote: > > The fundamental question really is 'are we a distro or not'? If linaro > > is not a distro then no-one should be expecting stable releases - we > > are a technology showcase, and developer quick-start m

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Joey STANFORD
Hi, Interesting discussion. :-) Here is my short take on this fwiw. Two key points (public source: http://www.linaro.org/about) 1) Linaro's goals are to deliver value to its members through enabling their engineering teams to focus on differentiation and product delivery, and to reduce time to

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Ricardo Salveti
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Wookey wrote: > +++ Clark, Rob [2012-04-05 21:10 -0500]: >> just some random thoughts on our release model, etc..  I've been >> meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time >> >> There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the >> monthly r

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Ricardo Salveti
Hey Rob, On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Clark, Rob wrote: > just some random thoughts on our release model, etc..  I've been > meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time Thanks for bringing this up here. > There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the > monthly

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Tom Gall
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Wookey wrote: > +++ Clark, Rob [2012-04-05 21:10 -0500]: >> just some random thoughts on our release model, etc..  I've been >> meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time >> >> There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the >> monthly r

Re: [PATCH] ACPI-Thermal: Make Thermal trip points writeable

2012-04-06 Thread Rob Lee
Sorry, I just read Durgadoss last comment. Please ignore mine. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 8:01 AM, Rob Lee wrote: > On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Amit Daniel Kachhap > wrote: >> Hi Durgadoss, >> >> Instead of making all the trip-points of a thermal zone writeable we should >> only allow non-crit

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Clark, Rob
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Wookey wrote: > +++ Clark, Rob [2012-04-05 21:10 -0500]: >> just some random thoughts on our release model, etc..  I've been >> meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time >> >> There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the >> monthly r

Re: [PATCH] ACPI-Thermal: Make Thermal trip points writeable

2012-04-06 Thread Rob Lee
On Thu, Apr 5, 2012 at 12:52 AM, Amit Daniel Kachhap wrote: > Hi Durgadoss, > > Instead of making all the trip-points of a thermal zone writeable we should > only allow non-critical trip points to be writeable. > > Thanks, > Amit Daniel > Agree, or even better, could the writeable attribute be ma

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Andy Green
On 04/06/2012 10:10 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > just some random thoughts on our release model, etc.. I've been > meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time > > There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the > monthly release cycle is confusing

Re: [RFC PATCH] hrtimers: system-wide and per-task hrtimer slacks

2012-04-06 Thread Dmitry Antipov
On 04/05/2012 04:10 AM, Andrew Morton wrote: Well.. there are some back-incompatibilities here. prctl(PR_SET_TIMERSLACK, -1) used to restore current's slack setting to whatever-we-inherited-at-fork, but that has been removed. What are the implications of this, and did we need to do it? It se

Re: won't someone please think of the users!?

2012-04-06 Thread Wookey
+++ Clark, Rob [2012-04-05 21:10 -0500]: > just some random thoughts on our release model, etc.. I've been > meaning to write up for a while but haven't had time > > There has been some feedback, for example on #pandaboard, that the > monthly release cycle is confusing and detrimental for folks l

[PATCH] prctl.2, proc.5: proposal to reflect http://lwn.net/Articles/484162

2012-04-06 Thread Dmitry Antipov
Document PR_GET_TIMERSLACK and PR_SET_TIMERSLACK for prctl (2). Document /proc/sys/kernel/timer_slack for proc (5). Signed-off-by: Dmitry Antipov --- man2/prctl.2 | 15 +++ man5/proc.5 |4 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/man2/prctl.2 b/man2