I understand. I didn't expect it to be included in the 2.4 patch; you're working off of the 2.8.2 release, right? The 'big idea' is to get some testing of the patch in the 2.4 world, then submit a 2.6 version of the patch to Greg. The patch came in to us against 2.4 so it's much easier to do it this way. mds Jean Delvare wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I can see that you have just been committing important changes to the > i2c CVS repository. What's the big idea? > > This repository is meant to be Linux-2.4 compatible. I'm having a hard > time these days trying to commit older changes into Linux-2.4 itself, > before it is too late for such changes to ba accepted. You have to > realize that once the Linux-2.4 kernel will have been placed into frozen > mode (and this is supposed to happen as 2.4.24 is released), no more > changes but bug fixes (and possibly code cleanups) will be accepted. I > already doubt I'll be in time to commit all the changes before the > deadline. What if you now start adding more new stuff in there? > > Let me be clear. Whatever is added to the i2c CVS repository by now > (including your recent "emulation patch") is *not* going to go into 2.4. > So what's the point in commiting it? New stuff should go into the 2.6 > kernel. With the release of the 2.6 kernel, 2.4 is no more the place for > development. And the i2c CVS repository as it exists today (well, as it > existed yesterday) has no other purpose but to be integrated into Linux > 2.4. What is not accepted into 2.4 will more likely be lost forever > unless it is ported to Linux 2.6. >
