* stephane eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > We know and knew about the existence of the perfmon patches, but > > they were always in the vague RFC category and never directly > > submitted or Cc:-ed to us. > > As Stephen pointed out, the full patchset was posted on LKML in > October I never saw any comments from you or any other x86 > maintainers. I always assumed you were ALL on LKML anyway. There's nothing to be "pointed out" about that - i was well aware of the regular perfmon spam on lkml ;-) What was done in stealth was its sudden "will go upstream in 1-2 months" status change, and its showing up in linux-next. There was ample opportunity to Cc: the maintainers for all of those steps - when you sent the tree setup request to Stephen, etc. Really, in such cases you are expected to ping the respective maintainers about what they think about it and whether there's any objections. If they only notice it via conflicts of problem patches in linux-next they'll (rightfully) go into grumpy mode. _Especially_ if then the linux-next integrator also plays stupid about basic kernel workflow questions ;-) > I have reposted the full patchset yesterday on LKML but > unfortunately my script dropped the cc-list. I will repost today > making sure x86@xxxxxxxxxx is cc'ed. I am sorry about that, it never > was intentional. I will be waiting for your feedback on the x86 > code. ok, thanks. That's all that is needed normally. Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
