On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 00:08 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > No sense in having a patch just for this, may as well merge this with
> > > patch 3 ..
> >
> > Wrong. patch 3 adds the API and this one makes use of it. Stevens split
> > makes perfectly sense.
>
> Clearly it doesn't make sense to me ;) .. The patches are too small to
> split them up that way ..
Daniel, you of all people should know. It's not the size of the patch
that matters, it's the way you use the patch ;-)
No these two patches should *not* be merged to one. If these are sitting
in -mm, and someone were to change the DRM to not to use the API and
someone else changed their driver to use the API, then what? Does
Andrew keep these maintenance patches on top of each other?
The split lets the DRM patch be dropped or replaced while keeping the
API patch around in case another driver uses the API.
The two patches have two different objectives, even though they are
related and currently on a 1 to 1 basis. The patches regardless, should
stay separate.
-- Steve
-
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]
