Hi,
Sorry to disturb, but it seems that kernel.org didn't pick up
2.4.20-pre1 (or I'm looking at the wrong places).
I'm asking because I've just finished testing my IrDA update
for 2.4.20, and you've just included some useless IrDA change that
probably render my patch worthless. So, I need to check and see how
much more work I need to do (or if I should just give up).
Regards,
Jean
On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry to disturb, but it seems that kernel.org didn't pick up
> 2.4.20-pre1 (or I'm looking at the wrong places).
>
> I'm asking because I've just finished testing my IrDA update
> for 2.4.20, and you've just included some useless IrDA change that
> probably render my patch worthless
What you mean I included some useless IrDA patch?
> So, I need to check and see how much more work I need to do (or if I
> should just give up).
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:33:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Sorry to disturb, but it seems that kernel.org didn't pick up
> > 2.4.20-pre1 (or I'm looking at the wrong places).
> >
> > I'm asking because I've just finished testing my IrDA update
> > for 2.4.20, and you've just included some useless IrDA change that
> > probably render my patch worthless
>
> What you mean I included some useless IrDA patch?
Yep, tons of these :
-----------------------------------------------
- IRDA_DEBUG(4, __FUNCTION__ "(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", speed,
- self->speed);
+ IRDA_DEBUG(4, "%s(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", __FUNCTION__,
+ speed, self->speed);
-----------------------------------------------
Between this and fixing a Oops or Deadlock, I'll take the
second any day.
I don't care on those patch in general, I'm not a control
freak, except that being so pervasive they are guaranteed to screw up
my own patches. That's why yesterday I *explicitely* asked you and
Alan if anything was pending, so that I could avoid wasting my time
and instead wait for the next release doing something else.
I guess it's too late, I already wasted my afternoon.
The second thing that bugs me is that because those patches
pass behind my back, they won't get applied to *both* 2.4.X and
2.5.X. Because of that, keeping 2.4.X and 2.5.X in synch is an
exercise in futility.
But maybe you are finding that there is already too many IrDA
maintainers.
I'll send you the Wireless patches, and I'll try to respin the
IrDA patches this afternoon (i.e. please screw me again !).
Regards,
Jean
On Tue, 6 Aug 2002, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 09:33:45AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2002, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Sorry to disturb, but it seems that kernel.org didn't pick up
> > > 2.4.20-pre1 (or I'm looking at the wrong places).
> > >
> > > I'm asking because I've just finished testing my IrDA update
> > > for 2.4.20, and you've just included some useless IrDA change that
> > > probably render my patch worthless
> >
> > What you mean I included some useless IrDA patch?
>
> Yep, tons of these :
> -----------------------------------------------
> - IRDA_DEBUG(4, __FUNCTION__ "(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", speed,
> - self->speed);
> + IRDA_DEBUG(4, "%s(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", __FUNCTION__,
> + speed, self->speed);
> -----------------------------------------------
> Between this and fixing a Oops or Deadlock, I'll take the
> second any day.
> I don't care on those patch in general, I'm not a control
> freak, except that being so pervasive they are guaranteed to screw up
> my own patches. That's why yesterday I *explicitely* asked you and
> Alan if anything was pending, so that I could avoid wasting my time
> and instead wait for the next release doing something else.
> I guess it's too late, I already wasted my afternoon.
>
> The second thing that bugs me is that because those patches
> pass behind my back, they won't get applied to *both* 2.4.X and
> 2.5.X. Because of that, keeping 2.4.X and 2.5.X in synch is an
> exercise in futility.
> But maybe you are finding that there is already too many IrDA
> maintainers.
>
> I'll send you the Wireless patches, and I'll try to respin the
> IrDA patches this afternoon (i.e. please screw me again !).
I can back out those patches if you want. Will that help you?
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 01:31:56PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> > I'll send you the Wireless patches, and I'll try to respin the
> > IrDA patches this afternoon (i.e. please screw me again !).
>
> I can back out those patches if you want. Will that help you?
No point in going backward, what's done is done, I'm already
working on 2.4.20-pre1. And I'm starting to cool down.
Jean
From: Jean Tourrilhes <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 10:17:36 -0700
The second thing that bugs me is that because those patches
pass behind my back, they won't get applied to *both* 2.4.X and
2.5.X. Because of that, keeping 2.4.X and 2.5.X in synch is an
exercise in futility.
This is an old topic. If cleanups get submitted they are going
to go in. If this means that someone has to redo a patch, that
is just a part of life.
Nobody is "above the law", sort of speak, when it comes to these
things. Cleanups and compile warning fixes are not required to
go through the maintainer of a piece of code.
About IRDA wrt. 2.4.x vs 2.5.x, it requires a partial rewrite in 2.5.x
anyways so don't get worked up over it :)
On Tue, 2002-08-06 at 18:17, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:
> Yep, tons of these :
> -----------------------------------------------
> - IRDA_DEBUG(4, __FUNCTION__ "(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", speed,
> - self->speed);
> + IRDA_DEBUG(4, "%s(), speed=%d (was %d)\n", __FUNCTION__,
> + speed, self->speed);
> -----------------------------------------------
> Between this and fixing a Oops or Deadlock, I'll take the
> second any day.
I'd prefer to be able to read the errors too but yes.
> Alan if anything was pending, so that I could avoid wasting my time
> and instead wait for the next release doing something else.
> I guess it's too late, I already wasted my afternoon.
By the time you asked I'd sent them
> The second thing that bugs me is that because those patches
> pass behind my back, they won't get applied to *both* 2.4.X and
> 2.5.X. Because of that, keeping 2.4.X and 2.5.X in synch is an
> exercise in futility.
I sent them to the maintainer.
IRDA SUBSYSTEM
P: Dag Brattli
M: Dag Brattli <[email protected]>
L: [email protected]
W: http://irda.sourceforge.net/
S: Maintained
If thats wrong, then thats why you never found out.