Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:37:00 -0700 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, cpufeature: Rename X86_FEATURE_DTS to X86_FEATURE_DTHERM |
| |
On 06/24/2012 12:49 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: >> >> Therefore, rename this to "dtherm". > > I see the rationale for changing the string in /proc/cpuinfo, and > "dtherm" is reasonably good. I fail to see the rationale for changing > the X86_FEATURE_ name though, this is an API change we don't need. Plus > X86_FEATURE_DTS has the merit of naming the feature the way it is > commonly done in technical documentation, so readers know exactly what > it refers too, which isn't the case of DTHERM. So can we please stick > to X86_FEATURE_DTS? >
Except that *really* seems like begging for similar problems in the future.
>> This conflict went into mainline via the hwmon tree without any x86 >> maintainer ack, and without any kind of hint in the subject. >> >> a4659053 x86/hwmon: fix initialization of coretemp > > All 3 x86 maintainers were Cc'd, none commented. And you know fairly > well why the patch went through the hwmon tree. So please stop the > finger-pointing. It's unfortunate that it happened, but it did, and we > try to fix it now, period. > >> Reported-by: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org> >> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/4FE34BCB.5050305@linux.intel.com >> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> >> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> v2.6.36..v3.4 > > No Signed-off-by? > > Not sure why you want this to go to stable trees? >
I think we want to minimize the ABI divergence here.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |