--- On Thu, 2/10/11, Sarah Sharp <sarah.a.sharp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Your patches did get a review, and while they had technical > merit, you > derailed the discussion and ostracized everyone > involved. Until we can > have a focused technical conversation that doesn't devolve > into personal > attacks, it will be difficult to get anything done. There was no reivew. Greg shot down the driver in 4 minutes after I posted it. Let me refresh your memory: http://marc.info/?t=129165521000011&r=2&w=2 > There were several people besides Matthew and I that agreed > that current > UAS driver in the kernel needs to be fixed, and that having > two drivers > leads to confusion with users. There were also people > that agreed that > your driver had technical merit, and that the UAS driver in > kernel > needed work. > > I don't think a whole-sale replacement is going to be easy > to push for > on your side. If you do care about UAS and getting a > good Linux driver, > you should submit a longer patchset to the current driver > to fix it. > The patchset should first fix any real technical errors > (like the > kzalloc fix you found), then have separate patches to clean > up the code. > No one has time to read one giant patch, either for adding > your new > driver, or for cleaning up the current driver. You have just proven my point regarding this "club". The points for removing the badly written uas.c and substituting in the uasp.c, which never got even a review have been outlined in the above thread. Luben -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
