From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752556Ab0EOHdK (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 May 2010 03:33:10 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:51513 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751988Ab0EOHdI (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 May 2010 03:33:08 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 09:32:31 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Yinghai Lu , Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , David Miller , Linus Torvalds , Johannes Weiner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/35] x86, lmb: Add lmb_reserve_area_overlap_ok() Message-ID: <20100515073231.GB9877@elte.hu> References: <1273796396-29649-1-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1273796396-29649-16-git-send-email-yinghai@kernel.org> <1273804337.21352.396.camel@pasglop> <4BECF158.5070200@oracle.com> <1273825807.21352.601.camel@pasglop> <4BED7CE3.1020507@oracle.com> <1273876234.21352.639.camel@pasglop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1273876234.21352.639.camel@pasglop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-08-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.0 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.0 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2010-05-14 at 09:40 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote: > > later, after this patchset. this patchset is hanging around too long > > already. > > That's where I strongly disagree with Ingo :-) > There's no such thing as a patch set hanging around > too long. Patches should go in when they are ready > and in good shape, not due to some kind of time > bomb, which results in tons of unfixable crap being > merged, which is very bad engineering. The thing i disagreed with was that the patches were posted in March and there was no progress for a long time. That kind of situation only leads to patches being piled up unreasonably and results in Yinghai wasting time and effort. But now there's real progress: you posted patches and Yinghai is posting patches and is reacting to your review feedback. As long there's steady progress (and not just the steady decay of entropy destroying already created value) i'm a happy camper. Btw., it would be nice to ready the LMB core bits for upstream for 2.6.35 if there's agreement about them - that will make the subsequent x86 patches much easier to merge. Thanks, Ingo