Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16:37AM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:47:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > Since all *printf() methods in the kernel understand '%pM' > modifier the conversion to the string is useless beforehand. > > Additionally this patch decreases batman_if structure by 20 > bytes.
Thanks for your patch. I have problems with compiling due to other patches in the queue. I will fix that and recommend it as patch for 2.6.38.
What do you mean by this? It applies just fine to my tree, so why can't I take it now?
If you want then do so, but the stuff in batman-adv's master must be fixed so they have to apply the v3 version of the patch and not the v2 version Andy sent.
That's one of the problems with having an out-of-tree tree. Please don't do that at all anymore.
I don't see a difference in a in-tree tree and and out-of-tree tree when applying patches somewhere else out of order. In both situations we have a merge conflict (not that the scm says "omg, i cannot merge it" but that the thing doesn't compile after the merge).
Not true at all, the in-linux-next tree builds just fine with this patch. In fact, it's now in linux-next already.
He? I never said that it breaks stuff in your staging tree.
I always thought that even when the source is in the kernel (or in staging) that there are still a maintainer responsible for it. That this person has to go through the patches and look if they do whatever they claim to do and that this isn't against what the original implementation had to do or should do.
Yes, but sometimes, especially for trivial patches, the maintainer is routed around and patches go in through other trees.
Remember a maintainer is not someone who can say "no" to all patches that comes in, sorry, we don't work that way.
What? I no batman-adv maintainer said no to patches on the lkml or other linux related mailing lists as far as I can remember, but postponed them or recommended changes.
There were patches dropped in the past which didn't make sense or created more problems than they solved - but that was even before batman-adv entered staging.
thanks, Sven