Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model

[Ingo Molnar]

* Jeff Garzik <jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Regarding the new x86/Voyager submission: architecture or core 
>> kernel level code always has a higher barrier of entry than 
>> driver code for a number of good reasons:
>
> No, my point is that it is blatantly unfair to remove code, then 
> reset standards for inclusion far, far higher than at which it 
> left the tree.

Oh, i'm all for including new code optimistically. (in fact i'm 
probably a bit over-inclusive)

But i'm not at all for easily re-including known problematic code 
that has been removed. Including known problematic code under the 
same standard as removal i'd call 'very stupid'.

IMO it is a fundamentally good engineering practice to learn from 
past experience and to learn from past mistakes and to require a 
higher standard if an old standard failed to produce an acceptable 
result first time around.

_Especially_ so for such an extremely obsolete piece of hardware 
with a single upstream user+developer and a dismal upstream track 
record ... We really have to learn to say 'no' at a certain point
...

I dont care about Voyager that much - but i do care about not doing 
stupid things intentionally in the code i (co-)maintain.

Anyway, as i said it in the previous mail - in the end it's up to 
Linus and he can override our NAK if we are wrong about it.

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/