On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 03:57:37PM -0400, Yani Ioannou wrote:
> On 5/11/05, Greg KH <[email protected]> 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
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
