On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 08:15 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:08 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > No sense in having a patch just for this, may as well merge this with > > > > patch 3 .. > > > > > > Wrong. patch 3 adds the API and this one makes use of it. Stevens split > > > makes perfectly sense. > > > > Clearly it doesn't make sense to me ;) .. The patches are too small to > > split them up that way .. > > Daniel, you of all people should know. It's not the size of the patch > that matters, it's the way you use the patch ;-) >
Are you trying to say that you think I have a small patch Steven ;) ? > No these two patches should *not* be merged to one. If these are sitting > in -mm, and someone were to change the DRM to not to use the API and > someone else changed their driver to use the API, then what? Does > Andrew keep these maintenance patches on top of each other? I read this 5 times at least .. I don't think I'm following what you saying .. It sounds like you might be thinking to many steps ahead tho.. > The split lets the DRM patch be dropped or replaced while keeping the > API patch around in case another driver uses the API. Ok, but there are no other users currently, and I think it's unlikely you'll have others in the future since TASKLET_STATE_SCHED seems more like an internal part of tasklets .. This drm user seems like the one aberrant. > The two patches have two different objectives, even though they are > related and currently on a 1 to 1 basis. The patches regardless, should > stay separate. I'm not convinced yet .. One more stab? Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
