Greg KH wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > > Greg KH wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16:37AM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:47:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > > > > > Since all *printf() methods in the kernel understand '%pM' > > > > > > > modifier the conversion to the string is useless beforehand. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Additionally this patch decreases batman_if structure by 20 > > > > > > > bytes. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch. I have problems with compiling due to > > > > > > other patches in the queue. I will fix that and recommend it as > > > > > > patch for 2.6.38. > > > > > > > > > > What do you mean by this? It applies just fine to my tree, so why > > > > > can't I take it now? > > > > > > > > If you want then do so, but the stuff in batman-adv's master must be > > > > fixed so they have to apply the v3 version of the patch and not the > > > > v2 version Andy sent. > > > > > > That's one of the problems with having an out-of-tree tree. Please > > > don't do that at all anymore. > > > > I don't see a difference in a in-tree tree and and out-of-tree tree when > > applying patches somewhere else out of order. In both situations we have > > a merge conflict (not that the scm says "omg, i cannot merge it" but > > that the thing doesn't compile after the merge). > > Not true at all, the in-linux-next tree builds just fine with this > patch. In fact, it's now in linux-next already. He? I never said that it breaks stuff in your staging tree. > > I always thought that even when the source is in the kernel (or in > > staging) that there are still a maintainer responsible for it. That this > > person has to go through the patches and look if they do whatever they > > claim to do and that this isn't against what the original implementation > > had to do or should do. > > Yes, but sometimes, especially for trivial patches, the maintainer is > routed around and patches go in through other trees. > > Remember a maintainer is not someone who can say "no" to all patches > that comes in, sorry, we don't work that way. What? I no batman-adv maintainer said no to patches on the lkml or other linux related mailing lists as far as I can remember, but postponed them or recommended changes. There were patches dropped in the past which didn't make sense or created more problems than they solved - but that was even before batman-adv entered staging. thanks, Sven
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
