Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:41:35 -0700 | From | Dan Williams <> | Subject | Re: [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 outcome.
-- Dan
| |