On Thu, 24 May 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > What's fragile is going around and adding "select IRQ_DOMAIN" to > > everything that does "select REGMAP_IRQ". So I removed that and just made > > IRQ_DOMAIN select REGMAP_IRQ itself. > > It's a different kind of fragility, things break immediately when you > add something new which is reasonably obvous as opposed to happening > at some other time due to a tooling issue and what I'm concerned about > avoiding. In any case... > Well pardon me for actually having a cluster of machines at Google dedicated to upstream build/boot/regression testing that verified my patch was correct and didn't result in any kind of "fragility", or what you have convinced yourself is "fragility." > > So can this be merged or what's the issue? > > ...Linus already merged my alternative patch which does this with a > select..if which never seems to have these issues. > When you propose your own version, drop all cc's (and this isn't the first time you've done that), and then send the git pull request less than 30 minutes later, I don't really have the chance to review it. Lesson learned, I simply won't bother to fix your code in the future. -- 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
