Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756442AbaDWPrL (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:47:11 -0400 Received: from host171.canaca.com ([67.55.55.225]:53810 "EHLO host171.canaca.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753156AbaDWPrJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:47:09 -0400 Message-ID: <0792885b3347c5935a0af7a7a3f3bc70.squirrel@mungewell.org> In-Reply-To: <20140423154201.GA10531@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1398175209-9565-1-git-send-email-madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net> <1398175209-9565-10-git-send-email-madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net> <1398260463.32091.5.camel@linux-fkkt.site> <5sjip0.n4hp0o.2szhuh-qmf@smtp.devoid-pointer.net> <20140423154201.GA10531@core.coreip.homeip.net> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 11:47:05 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 09/24] input: Port hid-dr to ff-memless-next From: simon@mungewell.org To: "Dmitry Torokhov" Cc: madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net, oneukum@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jkosina@suse.cz, elias.vds@gmail.com, anssi.hannula@iki.fi, simon@mungewell.org, linux-input@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.22 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - host171.canaca.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - vger.kernel.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - mungewell.org X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 03:14:44PM +0000, madcatxster@devoid-pointer.net > wrote: >> This is another case where even the old code was flawed, right? Should >> I try to stuff the fixes into these patches or would a few extra >> patches addressing these problems be an easier to review solution? I >> can append such patches to the MLNX patchset. > > Changes addressing pre-existing problem should go into separate patches > (preferably applicable first). > As a by-stander who would like to see MLNX move forward, should it be heldback by pre-existing problems in drivers that the MLNX dev(s) don't have hardware to test against...? Simon. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/