Hi, On Wed, 19 May 2010 07:24:00 -0700 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05/19/2010 04:46 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > <boilerplate> > > It's a pity this wasn't raised/resolved between its detection in linux-next and > > before it entered mainline... > > </boilerplate> > > As far as your boilerplate is concerned, I think Linus made it clear at > the Kernel Summit that is it not the obligation of x86/ARM/PowerPC to > slow down to not break the smaller architectures; it's the > responsibility of those architecture maintainers to keep up. Sorry. I don't think this reply has anything to do with the sentiments expressed by Geert above. My interpretation of his comments is just that it is a pity noone noticed the problem while it was only in linux-next and reported it widely (like on linux-arch) so something could have been done before it all Linus' tree. There was no suggestion of slowing the pace of development. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
Attachment:
pgp894lgyH0mY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
