early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.c
in [Kernel]
|
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt on 22 Mar 2010 18:00 On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 22:20 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So no arguments from me at all about the code quality aspects - i just wanted > to highlight the huge amount of non-trivial work Yinghai has invested into > this already, with little external help, and that if possible it would be nice > to minimize the upsetting of related x86 code if possible. Please help him out > with more specific suggestions about how the two memory allocation spaces > could be unified best, to serve the needs of all these architectures - if you > have some spare time. Why not start by unifying the APIs to it, while keeping the implementation in the arch for now ? That would be a good first step and would give us a good idea of what kind of requirements all the archs have since to some extent those requirements need to be represented in this API. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Paul Mackerras on 22 Mar 2010 18:00 On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:57:03PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Does this mean you disagree with that? (I think it's pretty factual, last i > checked the usage stats of devel kernels was somewhere around 99.7%.) Is that number obtained from Fedora downloads or something? I wouldn't be surprised if desktop usage of bleeding-edge kernels is near 100%, since basically all desktop machines are x86 these days. I think that number would be biased against server and embedded machines, but without knowing exactly what you're counting it's hard to say. In any case, I don't think the number of machines is particularly relevant. Linux runs on maybe 1% of all desktop machines in the world, according to numbers I've seen, but that doesn't make it irrelevant or not worth working on. Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt on 24 Mar 2010 01:00
On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 12:16 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > So if you want your architecture to matter to me the rule is very simple: > contribute, contribute, contribute, and stop whining. If you dont contribute, > frankly you dont really exist to me. On the other hand if you are actively > contributing while your architecture only exists on paper, it already starts > mattering to me. > > I'm really that simple. So basically, what you are saying is that, totally regardless of how much an architecture is actually used in the field, if the architecture maintainer for it doesn't also do your work and contribute to every single of your pet projects, or if everybody is like you, every single other subsystem in the kernel, then that architecture is irrelevant for technical considerations and choices regarding any design decision made to the core kernel ? Sorry Ingo, but that's just arrogant bullshit. So stop trying to win this useless argument, all you manage to do is anger people and make us even less willing to actually work with you. Cheers, Ben. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ |