On Monday 05 October 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > This thing has already been merged, it appears: and it looks like a > > total breakage of rules to me. > > Well, Len pointed out to me that the NAK is kind of pointless, since it > had no constructive alternatives to the issue. So he left it in as > documentation, but until the scheduler people can actually _do_ something > about the problem, their voice doesn't really matter, does it? Well, for a patch that was objected to so strongly, I think it didn't get enough review from other relevant people before being pushed upstream. It looks like Balbir didn't see it before for one example. It's been lots of time since the patch was originally posted to send it to the LKML for discussion and so on and to receive some comments that might help to improve it. I have no idea why that wasn't done and I suspect there was some corporate pressure on Len to push it upstream as quickly as possible. Best, Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
