Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:35:11 +0200 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/14] convert voyager over to the x86 quirks model |
| |
* James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 20:08 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> wrote: > > > > > > > > * James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 39 files changed, 554 insertions(+), 726 deletions(-) > > > > > > That diffstat is not against current mainline, is it? > > > Would you mind to send a proper diffstat with the revert > > > included as well? That will give us a complete picture. > > > > ok, i did the calculations, and the effect of adding back > > x86/Voyager is roughly: > > > > 48 files changed, 5226 insertions(+), 142 deletions(-) > > > > That's quite a lot, and lets put this into perspective. > > Hardly ... you're conflating two issues: one is what is the burden > to mainline, which the patch series is about, although only patch > 1 (and possibly patch 5) is truly critical to that, the rest are > assorted code moves.
This is roughly the diffstat we get when we add x86/Voyager support again. Are you saying that the diffstat is wrong? Could you paste the right diffstat then (which i asked you to do before, and which you have not done), which i'd get if i pulled your tree, if you think this one is wrong?
> > You are talking about moving ~5000 lines of legacy code back > > into arch/x86/, for a total of *four* Voyager/Linux systems, > > which are using _ancient_ 486/P5 era CPUs. > > That's factually incorrect on both counts. [...]
Please correct my numbers and facts then, if you know them.
> [...] But the real point is that kernel development isn't a > popularity contest, it's about the technical merits of the code > ... something you've been conspicuously avoiding.
The popularity and relevance (and obscolescence) of a hardware platform is certainly a significant factor in architecture maintenance decisions (such as whether and when to merge a piece of code or not) - are you saying it is not?
This is not just a new, well-isolated driver to put into drivers/* - this is about the most used Linux architecture code.
> > Two of these systems are in your house, two are somewhere > > unknown: their owners certainly never sent bugreports against > > recent mainline kernels (Voyager didnt even _build_ for a couple > > of straight kernel releases), and i suspect those boxes are > > probably decommissioned already. > > > > A single core on my run-of-the-mill x86 laptop has more > > computing power than all Voyager/Linux systems on the planet, > > combined. And you now want to add back support to the mainline > > arch/x86 code, which we are trying hard to keep running on > > millions of x86 Linux systems? > > Well, what can I say, if your laptop is the speed standard for > acceptable architectures, then I suppose you'll be removing all of > the embedded architectures as well?
I did not say or suggest that, and you clearly misrepresented my argument - so it seems to me you are not really interested in having an objective argument about this.
My argument was:
" A single core on my run-of-the-mill x86 laptop has more computing power than all Voyager/Linux systems on the planet, combined. "
How can you deform this plain-English fact that exposes the shocking irrelevance of Voyager/Linux into suggesting that i'd be "removing all of the embedded architectures as well" ?
It's an insane suggestion. [ In reality the combined computing power of all ARM or MIPS chips on this planet would certainly beat the currently fastest supercomputer. (it would be a few orders of magnitude faster, most likely) ]
> > You still have not given proper justification for doing that ... > > The justification is that I'm prepared to maintain it.
Sorry, but your willingness to maintain it _now_, means little to me. What matters to me is the existing track record of Voyager:
v2.6.27.0: Voyager was broken - it did not even build. v2.6.28.0: Voyager was broken - it did not even build. v2.6.29-rc5: Voyager was broken - it did not even build.
... it was broken up to the point where we removed it from the x86 devel tree. It only built in your out-of-tree repository. As far as the upstream kernel users are concerned Voyager did not exist since v2.6.27.0.
And the further justification (beyond all the things i mentioned in this and prior mails) i'm giving you for not pulling it right now is that Voyager/Linux is obviously irrelevant: with just about 4 boxes on the planet.
If that factor changes materially then the decision could be reconsidered.
> > Sorry to be the one to say 'no', but the reasons you gave so far > > were not very convincing to me. > > > > Anyway, you seem to be willing to maintain this code it out of tree. > > If someone owns such an ancient Voyager box and wants to test a new > > kernel then your tree is a good starting point for doing that. > > There's really no pressing need to have this in mainline. > > So the message you want to be giving out as a maintainer is that > everything should be developed upstream, except when it's x86?
No, the message i'm giving out as a maintainer is that everything that did not get merged due to being judged problematic or irrelevant (or both) by a maintainer can still be maintained out of tree, so that it can _prove_ the maintainer wrong: i.e. that it is useful and still relevant.
Get a user base. Find bugs on those boxes. Prove it that it matters to Linux. Then we can admit our mistake in a couple of cycles and merge it. There's been projects that lived out of tree for a decade, literally. There's life outside the upstream kernel too - it's not like your code has been destroyed. And you already expressed willingness to maintain it - and you are the only developer able to boot such a box. So please do it even if this code is not upstream for a few kernel cycles, for the sake of Voyager users.
Ingo
| |