From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73] helo=mx1.redhat.com) by Galois.linutronix.de with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1fKqIt-0006mQ-8X for speck@linutronix.de; Mon, 21 May 2018 21:17:08 +0200 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9506C81A8120 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 19:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from washington.bos.jonmasters.org (ovpn-120-238.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.120.238]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71D7F215CDA7 for ; Mon, 21 May 2018 19:16:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [MODERATED] Re: Date/Time? References: <20180519172627.GB1239@kroah.com> <20180521164655.GI17976@kroah.com> <0d7325d3-7882-7f24-a4e1-2df1259adaca@redhat.com> From: Jon Masters Message-ID: Date: Mon, 21 May 2018 15:16:56 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="gj7DUAqMTvLEWOXEuXJDwAA7mrLRLcgwl"; protected-headers="v1" To: speck@linutronix.de List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME encrypted message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --gj7DUAqMTvLEWOXEuXJDwAA7mrLRLcgwl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/21/2018 02:56 PM, speck for Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018, speck for Jon Masters wrote: >> One of the problems does seem to be that we didn't have a dedicated li= st >> for v4 earlier. I think it's important to tackle that next time around= =2E >=20 > Crap. What's important is that _WE_ can decide and act on our own witho= ut > having to ask Intel about every fart. Sure. My point is Intel didn't own v4. GPZ own that one. Intel just took point in doing disclosures to various folks once again. I actually consider what they are trying to do to be quite noble in intention, but (as I have said to Intel's execs with all due intended respect) it's not their place to do this for the whole industry. And it's important to understand the separation between v4 and any other past/future issue. This is why we need a better framework (and some folks are working on something) for joint industry issues that removes single vendors from owning architectural embargoes that impact multiple others. Jon. --=20 Computer Architect | Sent from my Fedora powered laptop --gj7DUAqMTvLEWOXEuXJDwAA7mrLRLcgwl--