* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 17:39 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > > > > > > > Alan is definitely right that we're likely to see more of the "non-PC" > > > > > platforms as x86 tries to do embedded. > > > > > > > > I agree, but the way voyager is done is _not_ a good example for the > > > > embedded x86 folks who will probably start to send in their scoop in > > > > the foreseable future. > > > > > > > > I'm not fundamentally against bringing Voyager back, but it > > > > needs to go through a useful patch submission and review process > > > > and not by forcing voyager wreckage into our code base. > > > > > > Ok, thanks. This was exactly the kind of thing I wanted to hear. > > > It does sound like the Voyager tree is doing things I myself > > > wouldn't approve of as a maintainer, so I can't really say that > > > I'm upset by the x86 maintainers then not pulling it. > > > > I also take back the "it's obsolete" and "it didnt even build" > > portion of my NAK - that was overboard as Alan and you pointed it > > out. > > > > I think we can work out something and a clear(er) platform driver > > interface abstraction with a thin cross section to generic x86 code > > will be helpful to a lot more than just Voyager. > > > > In fact we have implemented that largely and it went upstream in > > 2.6.30, via the massive changes around this bit: > > > > 6bda2c8: x86: remove subarchitecture support > > > > This is what _already_ happened to other (ex-)subarchitecture code: > > visws, numaq were frequent trouble spots too, and with the > > x86-quirks model they basically vanished from our regression lists. > > > > So it's a successful model in practice, and if Voyager is done in a > > similar way we wont see many Voyager problems in the future either. > > OK, so this is an acceptable compromise for me too. > > What I think now is needed (from me) are three patch sets: > > 1. The final subarchitecture cleanups > 2. The quirk model/smp ops additions > 3. The voyager put back. Yes, that looks fine. You can have them in a single series for convenience if you want to (it's probably easier for you to test that way) - but 3 separate series are fine too, no strong preference either way - as long as the internal structure and details follows the ordering and parameters we outlined in previous mails. 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
