Guenter, How would you partition it out? Are you suggesting that we do the following: Patch1: drivers/hwmon/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/hwmon/it87.c | 14 ++++++++++++- Patch2: drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 12 +++++++++++ drivers/watchdog/Makefile | 1 + drivers/watchdog/it8712f_wdt.c | 10 ++++---- drivers/watchdog/it87_lock.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/watchdog/it87_wdt.c | 42 ++++++--------------------------------- Patch3: include/linux/it87_lock.h | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Nat On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 07:03:35PM -0400, Natarajan Gurumoorthy wrote: >> Guenter, >> This patch patch applies a common fix to all IT87 driver. Separating it >> into 2 patches (one for drivers/hwmon and one for drivers/watchdog) does not >> seem to be the right thing to do. I think having all the patches in one file >> makes it easier to understand the rationale behind the patch. The >> it87_io_lock.c and it87_io_lock.h files are in drivers/watchdog directory and >> the lock defined in it is needed by the changes in drivers/hwmon/it87.c >> > > I dislike the idea of a single patch crossing multiple subsystems. Maybe you'll > find another maintainer accepting your change as a single patch, but I won't. > > That doesn't mean that the patches would have to be committed into multiple trees. > That is for the subsystem maintainers to sort out, and a different issue. > > Thanks, > Guenter > -- Regards Nat Gurumoorthy AB6SJ _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
