On Aug 12, 2006, at 1:07 AM, Vitaly Wool wrote: > May I disagree? Having an alternative implementation is never a bad > thing, unless the sides are unable to co-operate ;) > Let's try to compare implementations and their concepts, and benefit > from both. What are you disagreeing with? Re-read my statement below. I don't see the reason for another implementation. Rather than guess, I would prefer that Dave tell us why he is submitting a different powerop interface. There must be something driving him to do so. >> Is there >> something specific missing or wrong with the patches we submitted that >> required another set of patches to be developed? By joining in the >> discussion, I mean that you should let us know this information. If >> patches are your method for doing so, then at least provide a >> description of what your patches address that ours does not. Right >> now, its just unclear why there are two different powerop patchsets. >> Matt
