Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754741AbXFVMPp (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:15:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752344AbXFVMPi (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:15:38 -0400 Received: from ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.58]:38335 "EHLO ms-smtp-04.nyroc.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752159AbXFVMPh (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:15:37 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] Make DRM use the tasklet is-sched API From: Steven Rostedt To: Daniel Walker Cc: Thomas Gleixner , LKML , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , john stultz , Oleg Nesterov , "Paul E. McKenney" , Dipankar Sarma , "David S. Miller" , matthew.wilcox@hp.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru In-Reply-To: <1182496085.3228.26.camel@dhcp193.mvista.com> References: <20070622040014.234651401@goodmis.org> <20070622040137.104281523@goodmis.org> <1182494169.3228.11.camel@dhcp193.mvista.com> <1182494960.20203.34.camel@chaos> <1182496085.3228.26.camel@dhcp193.mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:15:25 -0400 Message-Id: <1182514525.5493.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1290 Lines: 35 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 ;-) 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? The split lets the DRM patch be dropped or replaced while keeping the API patch around in case another driver uses the API. 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. -- Steve - 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/