On 06/24/2012 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
Therefore, rename this to "dtherm".I see the rationale for changing the string in /proc/cpuinfo, and "dtherm" is reasonably good. I fail to see the rationale for changing the X86_FEATURE_ name though, this is an API change we don't need. Plus X86_FEATURE_DTS has the merit of naming the feature the way it is commonly done in technical documentation, so readers know exactly what it refers too, which isn't the case of DTHERM. So can we please stick to X86_FEATURE_DTS?
Except that *really* seems like begging for similar problems in the future.
This conflict went into mainline via the hwmon tree without any x86 maintainer ack, and without any kind of hint in the subject. a4659053 x86/hwmon: fix initialization of coretempAll 3 x86 maintainers were Cc'd, none commented. And you know fairly well why the patch went through the hwmon tree. So please stop the finger-pointing. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it did, and we try to fix it now, period.Reported-by: Jean Delvare <khali@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4FE34BCB.5050305@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> v2.6.36..v3.4No Signed-off-by? Not sure why you want this to go to stable trees?
I think we want to minimize the ABI divergence here. -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-tip-commits" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html