This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: How are we doing with our blockers for 2.18?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Ryan S. Arnold" <ryan dot arnold at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, Ryan Arnold <rsa at us dot ibm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:22:35 -0400
- Subject: Re: How are we doing with our blockers for 2.18?
- References: <51BB768B dot 8010204 at redhat dot com> <CAAKybw_nEWwod5-aP7UvmXQc4A-Pe_nKhyBOkuFydQLzbOx=zg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 06/14/2013 05:39 PM, Ryan S. Arnold wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com> wrote:
>> Community,
>>
>> How are we doing with our 2.18 blockers?
>
> The Power8 patches depends on AT_HWCAP2 as is, but I suppose I could
> separate the platform enablement from the power8 hwcap bits. That
> would still get the power8 arch stuff in place by Monday. in the
> meantime I'll look at the implications of AT_HWCAP w/rt the
> pseudo-hwcap bits.
Monday is an arbitrary day for the freeze.
What really matters is that we as a community talk about what
features we want in 2.18, abide by that, and then work to review
and close out those issues as immediately as possible.
What is required to get the Power8 and AT_HWCAP2 patches into
master right now?
If you can split the patches and that makes review easier then
please do so immediately :-)
Cheers,
Carlos.