On 05/19/2010 07:36 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > 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 expr > 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. It was discussed on linux-kernel -- note that there is no breakage for smaller architectures unless you enable the test directly or via randconfig. The other part is that generic atomic64_t has been available since middle of 2009, and was *also* discussed extensively on linux-kernel -- in fact, several of the smaller architectures added support at that time. That the breakage occurred because of an inconsequential test rather than real code is thus really nothing but fortunate. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- 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
