Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1761086AbXI1Bk1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:40:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760065AbXI1BkN (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:40:13 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:36976 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757568AbXI1BkM (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:40:12 -0400 Subject: iwl4965 and driver merging policy From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel list , tomas.winkler@intel.com Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:39:27 +1000 Message-Id: <1190943567.6158.50.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 962 Lines: 27 Hi ! Just a little question in the light of the discussion we had at Kernel Summit about merging drivers upstream (and here, I strongly agree with Linus, hence my message). I just got that new T61 laptop which happens to have an iwl4xxx chip. The distro I installed on it (ubuntu) has a driver for it. I suspect others do too and most users get it from some random external tree and use it. Thus my question, why are we about to release 2.6.23 without it ? It doesn't seem to pull any depedency nor affect any other external piece of code unless I'm missing something, so it's a perfect example of what we've been discussing back then: there is just no point not merging it at any time right ? :-) Cheers, Ben. - 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/