On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 10:45:42PM +0200, David Härdeman wrote: >On 2015-06-18 23:23, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >>Em Sun, 14 Jun 2015 01:44:54 +0200 >>David Härdeman <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: >>>Mauro....wake up? I hope you're not planning to push the current code >>>upstream??? >> >>What's there are planned to be sent upstream. If you think that something >>is not mature enough to be applied, please send a patch reverting it, >>with "[PATCH FIXES]" in the subject, clearly explaining why it should be >>reverted for me to analyze. Having Antti/James acks on that would help. > >This thread should already provide you with all the information you need why >the patches should be reverted (including Antii saying the patches should be >reverted). > >The current code includes hilarious "features" like producing different >results depending on module load order and makes sure we'll be stuck with a >bad API. Sending them upstream will look quite foolish... And now the patches have been submitted and comitted upstream. What's your plan? Leave it like this? -- David Härdeman -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
