On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 22:41:50 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > * Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 21:26:57 +0200 Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > I think this just broke all non-x86 non-sparc SMP architectures. > > > > > > Yeah - it 'broke' them in the sense of them not having a working > > > trigger_all_cpu_backtrace() implementation to begin with. > > > > c'mon. It broke them in the sense that sysrq-l went from "works" > > to "doesn't work". > > You are right (i broke it with my patch) but the thing is, sysrq-l > almost useless currently: it uses schedule_work() which assumes a > mostly working system with full irqs and scheduling working fine. > Now, i dont need sysrq-l on mostly working systems. > > So the 'breakage' is of something that was largely useless: and now > you put the onus of implementing it for _all_ architectures (which i > dont use) on me? I never said that. It's appropriate that those architectures be left with their existing level of functionality/usefulness, as you're already discussing. > > It's better to break the build or to emit warnings than to > > silently and secretly break their stuff. > > But that warning will bounce the ball back to me, wont it? My patch > will be blamed for 'breaking' those architectures, right? It's a very crude and somewhat rude way of communicating information to other architecture maintainers. A better way would be to send them an email explaining the problem and outlining some solutions, no? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|