Hi Joe,
Sorry for the late answer.
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:10:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Besides, linux-next is meant for integration testing. We already know
> > that the change will integrate fine, in that it won't cause a build
> > failure or runtime crash. We also know that, without the tree-wide
> > cleanup of many driver, the change will cause duplicate prefixes in
> > many messages.
> >
> > There's little point in testing something we know will not be good
> > enough. Better prepare all the driver patches, and test the whole thing
> > when it's ready. I know it will be a very large and intrusive patchset,
> > but this can certainly be done with Andrew's support.
>
> I think you underestimate the time, effort and acceptance
> levels by the various arches and maintainers required.
>
> Also, it's not just drivers, it's arch, lib, and kernel.
> (...)
I've had time to think about it all some more, and I have to admit that
my counter-proposal doesn't really fly. Changing everything at once
throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.
So I hate to admit it, but your initial proposal was certainly better,
because it can be done one subsystem at a time. So I think we should
forget about my objections and go on with your first patchset.
That being said, to avoid messing up the kernel tree completely, I
think we need a clearly defined plan before we start. This plan should
include:
* A clear statement of goal.
* An explanation of the steps we have to go through to reach it.
* An rough schedule of when it will happen (in either time or kernel
versions) with a deadline after which changing the default definition
of pr_fmt() will be considered OK.
And the plan should be made known to all subsystem maintainers, with
publicly visible progress tracking. Otherwise I fear it will take
forever to reach your goal.
Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:33:42AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Joe,
>
> Sorry for the late answer.
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 15:10:50 -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 10:43 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Besides, linux-next is meant for integration testing. We already know
> > > that the change will integrate fine, in that it won't cause a build
> > > failure or runtime crash. We also know that, without the tree-wide
> > > cleanup of many driver, the change will cause duplicate prefixes in
> > > many messages.
> > >
> > > There's little point in testing something we know will not be good
> > > enough. Better prepare all the driver patches, and test the whole thing
> > > when it's ready. I know it will be a very large and intrusive patchset,
> > > but this can certainly be done with Andrew's support.
> >
> > I think you underestimate the time, effort and acceptance
> > levels by the various arches and maintainers required.
> >
> > Also, it's not just drivers, it's arch, lib, and kernel.
> > (...)
>
> I've had time to think about it all some more, and I have to admit that
> my counter-proposal doesn't really fly. Changing everything at once
> throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.
>
> So I hate to admit it, but your initial proposal was certainly better,
> because it can be done one subsystem at a time. So I think we should
> forget about my objections and go on with your first patchset.
>
I pretty much came to the same conclusion. No objections here anymore either.
Guenter
On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 08:55 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:33:42AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > Changing everything at once
> > throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.
> > So I hate to admit it,
I try to value my own opinion rather less highly than I used to
so I can discount it better when I'm proven wrong.
That must come from being married...
> go on with your first patchset.
> I pretty much came to the same conclusion. No objections here anymore either.
Is there anything you need from me?
On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 12:16:03PM -0500, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 08:55 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 07:33:42AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > Changing everything at once
> > > throughout the whole kernel tree is simply too difficult.
> > > So I hate to admit it,
>
> I try to value my own opinion rather less highly than I used to
> so I can discount it better when I'm proven wrong.
>
> That must come from being married...
>
;)
> > go on with your first patchset.
> > I pretty much came to the same conclusion. No objections here anymore either.
>
> Is there anything you need from me?
>
I'll start applying the patches to my next tree. I'll get back to you if I run
into trouble.
Jean, do you want to take some of the patches, or should I take them all ?
Guenter
Hi Guenter,
On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:23 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> I'll start applying the patches to my next tree. I'll get back to you if I run
> into trouble.
>
> Jean, do you want to take some of the patches, or should I take them all ?
I'll take the it87, lm78, pc87360, pc87427 and w83781d patches. Please
take all the rest. Thanks!
--
Jean Delvare
On Tue, Nov 09, 2010 at 03:42:23AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Guenter,
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 19:07:23 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > I'll start applying the patches to my next tree. I'll get back to you if I run
> > into trouble.
> >
> > Jean, do you want to take some of the patches, or should I take them all ?
>
> I'll take the it87, lm78, pc87360, pc87427 and w83781d patches. Please
> take all the rest. Thanks!
>
Ok.
Guenter