public inbox for linux-next@vger.kernel.org 
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte•hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation•org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix•de>,
	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk•ukuu.org.uk>,
	James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership•com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor•com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation•org>,
	Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb•auug.org.au>,
	linux-next@vger•kernel.org
Subject: Re: Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:39:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090610153954.GA3464@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.01.0906100821540.6847@localhost.localdomain>


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation•org> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > 
> > > Alan is definitely right that we're likely to see more of the "non-PC" 
> > > platforms as x86 tries to do embedded.
> > 
> > I agree, but the way voyager is done is _not_ a good example for the
> > embedded x86 folks who will probably start to send in their scoop in
> > the foreseable future.
> > 
> > I'm not fundamentally against bringing Voyager back, but it 
> > needs to go through a useful patch submission and review process 
> > and not by forcing voyager wreckage into our code base.
> 
> Ok, thanks. This was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear. 
> It does sound like the Voyager tree is doing things I myself 
> wouldn't approve of as a maintainer, so I can't really say that 
> I'm upset by the x86 maintainers then not pulling it.

I also take back the "it's obsolete" and "it didnt even build" 
portion of my NAK - that was overboard as Alan and you pointed it 
out.

I think we can work out something and a clear(er) platform driver 
interface abstraction with a thin cross section to generic x86 code 
will be helpful to a lot more than just Voyager.

In fact we have implemented that largely and it went upstream in 
2.6.30, via the massive changes around this bit:

  6bda2c8: x86: remove subarchitecture support

This is what _already_ happened to other (ex-)subarchitecture code: 
visws, numaq were frequent trouble spots too, and with the 
x86-quirks model they basically vanished from our regression lists.

So it's a successful model in practice, and if Voyager is done in a 
similar way we wont see many Voyager problems in the future either.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-10 15:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-08 16:10 Request for linux-next inclusion of the voyager tree James Bottomley
2009-06-08 23:28 ` Tony Breeds
2009-06-10 14:45   ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09  9:45 ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-06-09 13:49   ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09 20:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 20:33   ` James Bottomley
2009-06-09 21:18     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-09 23:41   ` Alan Cox
2009-06-09 23:56     ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10  0:04       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10  0:30         ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10  1:00           ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 14:38             ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:20               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 15:28                 ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:33                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 16:19                   ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 16:42               ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-10 14:23           ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 15:13         ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-06-10 15:23           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-06-10 15:39             ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-06-10 16:02               ` James Bottomley
2009-06-10 16:53                 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-06-11  1:35                   ` Stephen Rothwell
2009-06-11  1:39                     ` James Bottomley

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090610153954.GA3464@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte$(echo .)hu \
    --cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership$(echo .)com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation$(echo .)org \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk$(echo .)ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=hpa@zytor$(echo .)com \
    --cc=linux-next@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb$(echo .)auug.org.au \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix$(echo .)de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation$(echo .)org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox