On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 19:53 +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:42:37AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > That's why on occasions we do transgress the established process to > > > accommodate such changes. Imagine just for a moment the patch that > > > modified the interrupt callback prototype to remove the useless pt_regs > > > argument. Obviously, it had to be done atomically to the _whole_ tree, > > > and it was agreed that this patch was to be applied at the end of the > > > merge window. But no one expected a single minute sending a CC to _all_ > > > the driver authors. > > > > I don't actually know which patch your talking about, but it sounds > > pretty simple.. I'm not really addressing really simple fixes, even tho > > changing a single parameter on a function could be done broken up > > depending on what it is. > > As you think that it's a simple matter, I challenge you to break this > change up in a way that doesn't result in any build breakage: > 7d12e780e003f93433d49ce78cfedf4b4c52adc5 I wasn't saying it's simple to break patches up. I was just saying the patch sounded like something simple, like running sed over the source or a change replace type patch. I'll look at the patch you reference tho, maybe I can break it up. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
