From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756462Ab1C3WsG (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:48:06 -0400 Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.71]:43889 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756409Ab1C3WsD (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:48:03 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS X-Originating-IP: 98.234.237.12 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX199Mq7yH2hevJSbXoe1q+/K Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:47:52 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Russell King - ARM Linux , Arnd Bergmann , Nicolas Pitre , Catalin Marinas , LKML , David Brown , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window Message-ID: <20110330224752.GN18334@atomide.com> References: <20110317183048.GW7258@atomide.com> <20110318101512.GA15375@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <201103301906.42429.arnd@arndb.de> <20110330215434.GI18334@atomide.com> <20110330223807.GP2255@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110330223807.GP2255@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Paul E. McKenney [110330 15:35]: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:54:35PM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Thomas Gleixner [110330 14:07]: > > > > > > So one person will be not enough, that needs to be a whole team of > > > experienced people in the very near future to deal with the massive > > > tsunami of crap which is targeted at mainline. If we fail to set that > > > up, then we run into a very ugly maintainability issue in no time. > > > > One thing that will help here and distribute the load is to move > > more things under drivers/ as then we have more maintainers looking > > at the code. > > In many cases, the ARM SoC vendors will want their people producing the > code, so although moving things to drivers might be a good thing to do, > it won't really increase the number of people involved. Plus the move > to the drivers subtree would be a problem for devices with tight ties > to the board or SoC. > > There is work on pushing towards common code, but there is a lot of code > and this will take time and a lot of work. I agree on the common code part, then even drivers with tight ties to board or SoC become just generic drivers that are easy to review. Tony