* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 09:40 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > later, after this patchset. this patchset is hanging around too long > > already. > > That's where I strongly disagree with Ingo :-) > There's no such thing as a patch set hanging around > too long. Patches should go in when they are ready > and in good shape, not due to some kind of time > bomb, which results in tons of unfixable crap being > merged, which is very bad engineering. The thing i disagreed with was that the patches were posted in March and there was no progress for a long time. That kind of situation only leads to patches being piled up unreasonably and results in Yinghai wasting time and effort. But now there's real progress: you posted patches and Yinghai is posting patches and is reacting to your review feedback. As long there's steady progress (and not just the steady decay of entropy destroying already created value) i'm a happy camper. Btw., it would be nice to ready the LMB core bits for upstream for 2.6.35 if there's agreement about them - that will make the subsequent x86 patches much easier to merge. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
