On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote: > On 5/11/05, Greg KH <greg at kroah.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:58:35AM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote: > > Sorry, but I need a real patch in email form so I can apply it. I can > > handle a 300K+ email :) > > > > Or you can break it up into smaller pieces, like one per major part of > > the kernel. That is the preferred way. > > I'd like to break it up, but I think even broken up by major part of > the kernel it one piece will still be too large since the majority of > the changes take place in drivers & drivers/i2c and are very > asymmetric :-(. I'll send you the patch inline privately for now. No, please break it up. "too large" is a problem for someone trying to review it too. If the i2c parts are too big, then split them up into multiple patches too. > > We should make a __ATTR macro instead, right? > > Well another __ATTR macro (e.g. ATTR_PRIVATE) would make declaring the > new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro, etc, easier. Sorry, yes, that's what I ment. > The question really is, is it better to just add that new parameter to > the DEVICE_ATTR macro, or to declare a new DEVICE_ATTR_PRIVATE macro > instead. The former obviously breaks a lot of code although my scripts > can generate another large patch for that too... No, use a new macro. thanks, greg k-h
