* LinuxPPS status?
@ 2009-05-08 10:17 Udo van den Heuvel
2009-05-08 10:27 ` Alan Cox
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Udo van den Heuvel @ 2009-05-08 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
Hello,
Can anybody please give a summary of the things needing work before
LinuxPPS can go into the kernel?
Andrew posted something in february but are his objections still valid?
Can we just fix the final bits and have it in the kernel whenever the
first occasion comes along?
Kind regards,
Udo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: LinuxPPS status?
2009-05-08 10:17 LinuxPPS status? Udo van den Heuvel
@ 2009-05-08 10:27 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-08 22:59 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alan Cox @ 2009-05-08 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Udo van den Heuvel; +Cc: linux-kernel
On Fri, 08 May 2009 12:17:39 +0200
Udo van den Heuvel <udovdh@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can anybody please give a summary of the things needing work before
> LinuxPPS can go into the kernel?
> Andrew posted something in february but are his objections still valid?
>
> Can we just fix the final bits and have it in the kernel whenever the
> first occasion comes along?
If you are getting no feedback just submit it next merge window. Either
its offended nobody or they've forgotten to notice - in both cases
submitting it will have the desired effect.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: LinuxPPS status?
2009-05-08 10:27 ` Alan Cox
@ 2009-05-08 22:59 ` Andrew Morton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Morton @ 2009-05-08 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alan Cox; +Cc: udovdh, linux-kernel, Rodolfo Giometti, Christoph Hellwig
On Fri, 8 May 2009 11:27:22 +0100
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 08 May 2009 12:17:39 +0200
> Udo van den Heuvel <udovdh@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Can anybody please give a summary of the things needing work before
> > LinuxPPS can go into the kernel?
> > Andrew posted something in february but are his objections still valid?
> >
> > Can we just fix the final bits and have it in the kernel whenever the
> > first occasion comes along?
>
> If you are getting no feedback just submit it next merge window. Either
> its offended nobody or they've forgotten to notice - in both cases
> submitting it will have the desired effect.
As far as I know the master version is sitting in -mm. This thing has
gone on for so long and with such large intervals between activity that
I've forgotten what the outstanding issues are, if any.
I have a note here that Christoph had requested that the pps header
file be split in some fashion (user and kernel?) but that doesn't
appear to have happened in my copy of the patch.
Probably it would be best to start again, resend the patch with 1000 cc's,
re-review and actually get it over the line.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* LinuxPPS status?
@ 2008-09-22 7:29 Udo van den Heuvel
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Udo van den Heuvel @ 2008-09-22 7:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: LKML
Hello,
Can anybody here explain the status of the LinuxPPS kernel patch?
Is the code OK? Or are further refinements needed?
Is there a consensus?
Kind regards,
Udo
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-05-08 23:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-05-08 10:17 LinuxPPS status? Udo van den Heuvel
2009-05-08 10:27 ` Alan Cox
2009-05-08 22:59 ` Andrew Morton
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-09-22 7:29 Udo van den Heuvel
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.