Return-Path: Message-ID: <51F16C70.2090100@hurleysoftware.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 14:20:32 -0400 From: Peter Hurley MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Gianluca Anzolin CC: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, gustavo@padovan.org, marcel@holtmann.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] rfcomm: Move the tty initialization and cleanup out of open/close References: <1374510435-12149-1-git-send-email-gianluca@sottospazio.it> <1374510435-12149-2-git-send-email-gianluca@sottospazio.it> <51F0550A.1000402@hurleysoftware.com> <20130725053725.GA7214@sottospazio.it> <51F1213C.3030900@hurleysoftware.com> <20130725180749.GA12067@sottospazio.it> In-Reply-To: <20130725180749.GA12067@sottospazio.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed List-ID: On 07/25/2013 02:07 PM, Gianluca Anzolin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 08:59:40AM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote: >> On 07/25/2013 01:37 AM, Gianluca Anzolin wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> sorry I'm not very used to submit patches "the right way" and I missed the >>> point that I have to keep the changes to the minimum. >> >> No need to apologize. >> Every kernel contributor goes through this learning curve. >> > > Hello, > > I'm trying to reach the minimal changeset to reach my target, and in the > process I figured out that if I implement the .activate and .shutdown port > methods before the .install and .cleanup methods I could produce less changes. > > However I'm stuck now because I cannot guarantee that the intermediate code > between the patches works at all (however it compiles). What should I do? The tty .install and .cleanup methods should be introduced first. Then the tty_port methods. The dev_list patch should be before both. If you want, feel free to send me private email with questions and/or code snippets, and I'll do my best to respond quickly. Regards, Peter Hurley