Jason Thorpe <thorpej@shagadelic.org> writes:

> On Feb 20, 2007, at 3:37 PM, Bucky Katz wrote:
>
>> I also wasn't aware that you spoke for core.  Where I last left this
>> with core was an investigation to see how reasonable it would be to
>> do, that's been hampered by tip'o'tree at first not building and now
>> not running on ARM.
>
> I don't (speak for core).  However, the momentum (in both reasoning
> and deeds) is too strong to go back at this point.

You seem to misunderstand what's being asked for.  Perhaps you're not
aware of what's going on in the evbarm port just now?

Nobody changed the subject line, but the topic now is a) fix omap in
the face of newlock2 and b) put m:n back in as an option for
uniprocessors.

There's no one arguing for "going back".

There's no one asking for work to be thrown away.

A is being worked on. Several people have kindly volunteered and ARM
is more or less working on several devices but not on others.

B is what I _thought_ I was trying to work out with core before you
issued your fiat, which, apparently, you're in no position to issue,
as, as you say, you *don't* speak for core.

Perhaps it would be better if the people who came late to the table
sit quietly and let those who are trying to find a win/win do their
thing?

I know i'd find a lot less reason to be abrasive at this point if I
didn't have to continualy explain to late comers what is actually
being asked for.