[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] firmware/efi: export a routine to retrieve efi-variables by GUID
On 3/19/2011 5:14 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:15:47PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On 3/18/2011 5:22 PM, Greg KH wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 04:10:10PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>>> I needed all patches in linux-next _before_ the merge window opened to
>>>>> be able to accept it.
>>>> Yes, I know, and as dmaengine maintainer I also hate being ambushed by
>>>> last minute patches, but now I am unfortunately one of those annoying
>>>> people on the other side of the coin.
>>> Then you should know better than to try to go around the well-known
>>> rules :)
>> Yes...
>> /me about to push his luck
> <snip>
>> As Jeff pointed out:
>> "It seemed like this was turning into another driver that would get
>> held outside the kernel until it's "perfect." If that is the case,
>> Linus has also made it clear we should get drivers for high volume,
>> shipping hardware into the kernel, even if its staging, if the
>> alternative is to deny users the driver."
> That's fine, _BUT_ you are trying to go around the rules for the merge
> window, which isn't acceptable. Also note that your driver isn't
> self-contained, it needs this change at the least, right? Any others?

This efi export was a late discovery, we tried to use the existing
exports (raw efi runtime services) but it was not clean (needed to
duplicate utf-8 encoding in the driver). The other external changes/bug
fixes needed for this driver were submitted weeks ago.

>> So yes, we are targeting that exception. I'm up for taking the heat
>> directly if you want... because the pull request will need to
>> backed up with justification.
> No, sorry, I'll not take this for .40, all of my trees are merged with
> Linus now for .40 and I'll only be sending him bugfixes until the .41
> merge window opens up.
> Remember, it's only a 3 month wait, you knew about this _WAY_ in
> advance, so it's not like this is something new, or out of the ordinary
> at all. Because of that, I fail to see why this is somehow not
> expected.

Yes, we knew about this way in advance, we brought you in too late for a
.39-staging discussion. Appreciate the consideration and understand the


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-21 19:43    [W:0.062 / U:3.580 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site