Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86

[Con Kolivas]

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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/