Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262041AbVEKU3L (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 16:29:11 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261284AbVEKU3L (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 16:29:11 -0400 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:56480 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262041AbVEKU3E (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 May 2005 16:29:04 -0400 Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:28:05 -0700 From: Greg KH To: Yani Ioannou Cc: LM Sensors , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Justin Thiessen Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc4 3/3] (dynamic sysfs callbacks) device_attribute Message-ID: <20050511202805.GB2222@kroah.com> References: <2538186705051100583c6b1ffb@mail.gmail.com> <20050511170600.GD15398@kroah.com> <25381867050511125761fcfad0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <25381867050511125761fcfad0@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1603 Lines: 40 On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote: > On 5/11/05, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:58:35AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote: > > Sorry, but I need a real patch in email form so I can apply it. I can > > handle a 300K+ email :) > > > > Or you can break it up into smaller pieces, like one per major part of > > the kernel. That is the preferred way. > > I'd like to break it up, but I think even broken up by major part of > the kernel it one piece will still be too large since the majority of > the changes take place in drivers & drivers/i2c and are very > asymmetric :-(. I'll send you the patch inline privately for now. No, please break it up. "too large" is a problem for someone trying to review it too. If the i2c parts are too big, then split them up into multiple patches too. > > We should make a __ATTR macro instead, right? > > Well another __ATTR macro (e.g. ATTR_PRIVATE) would make declaring the > new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro, etc, easier. Sorry, yes, that's what I ment. > The question really is, is it better to just add that new parameter to > the DEVICE_ATTR macro, or to declare a new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro > instead. The former obviously breaks a lot of code although my scripts > can generate another large patch for that too... No, use a new macro. thanks, greg k-h - 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/