From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH -v3 0/8] ACPI, APEI patches for 2.6.37 Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:27:02 -0700 Message-ID: <20101027082702.c65a0d22.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> References: <1288157312-10441-1-git-send-email-ying.huang@intel.com> <1288174050.15336.1507.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from rcsinet10.oracle.com ([148.87.113.121]:26598 "EHLO rcsinet10.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756464Ab0J0P2K (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:28:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1288174050.15336.1507.camel@twins> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Huang Ying , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , "Luck, Tony" , BorislavPetkov , Andrew Morton , Don Zickus , Linus Torvalds On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:07:30 +0200 Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, 2010-10-27 at 13:28 +0800, Huang Ying wrote: > > v3: > > > > - Rework lock-less memory allocator and lock-less list. > > > > v2: > > > > - Some minor changes according to Andi's comments. > > > > [PATCH -v3 1/8] ACPI, APEI, Add ERST record ID cache > > [PATCH -v3 2/8] lib, Make gen_pool memory allocator lock-less > > [PATCH -v3 3/8] lib, Add lock-less NULL terminated single list > > [PATCH -v3 4/8] Hardware error device core > > [PATCH -v3 5/8] Hardware error record persistent support > > [PATCH -v3 6/8] ACPI, APEI, Use ERST for hardware error persisting before panic > > [PATCH -v3 7/8] ACPI, APEI, Report GHES error record with hardware error device core > > [PATCH -v3 8/8] ACPI, APEI, Generic Hardware Error Source POLL/IRQ/NMI notification type support > > You forgot to CC all people who participated in the previous discussion. > > You seem to have forgotten to address the high-level feedback given by > the x86 maintainers. > > All you've done is decreased the arch/x86/ footprint of the patch > series, but neither you nor Andi have addressed the technical arguments > against adding this ABI. > > Nor have you engaged in conversation with the other EDAC people on how > to extend the existing interface, or even work towards creating > something new that would cater to all interested parties. > > Not charmed at all by your attitude. > -- Looks like you also have not addressed this reported build error: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/25/440 --- ~Randy *** Remember to use Documentation/SubmitChecklist when testing your code ***