Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21 v3] amd64_edac: EDAC module for AMD64

[Doug Thompson <norsk5@yahoo.com>]

--- On Thu, 5/7/09, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote:

> From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/21 v3] amd64_edac: EDAC module for AMD64
> To: "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> Cc: "Borislav Petkov" <borislav.petkov@amd.com>, greg@kroah.com, norsk5@yahoo.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, mchehab@redhat.com, aris@redhat.com, edt@aei.ca, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Thursday, May 7, 2009, 3:18 PM
> 
> * Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 7 May 2009 16:38:07 +0200
> > Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:27:24PM +0200, Ingo
> Molnar wrote:
> > > > Regarding workflow, the arch/x86 bits look
> good to me now, so you've 
> > > > got my Acked-by for that.
> > > 
> > > Cool, thanks.
> > > 
> > > Does that mean you're going to pick that one
> or...
> > > 
> > > > Most of the EDAC patches are hosted in 
> > > > -mm, so we could carry them in the x86 tree
> separately as well and 
> > > > export it to linux-next so that -mm will
> have it automatically.
> > > 
> > > is the bunch going through Andrew as a whole?
> > > 
> > 
> > I could.  But there's negligible overlap with
> other EDAC work so 
> > we might as well merge this via IngoTrees or directly
> from your 
> > tree.
> 
> If Doug and you agrees too then i have no problem (at all)
> with 
> Borislav carrying these bits in a separate tree, as long as
> he also 
> opens an edac-next branch for linux-next and asks Stephen
> to pull 
> it, and keeps it an append-mostly tree that isnt rebased.
> 
> [ I still have to do a finegrained review of this lot, a
> quick look
>   suggested i'll have a few minor things to note ;) ]
> 
>     Ingo
> 

I agree, if it removes a burden from some

doug t