From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751958Ab2LQI6N (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:58:13 -0500 Received: from mx3.cyfra.ua ([62.80.160.182]:55199 "EHLO mx3.cyfra.ua" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751269Ab2LQI6L (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Dec 2012 03:58:11 -0500 From: Vitalii Demianets Organization: Factor-SPE To: "Hans J. Koch" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] Fix memory freeing issues Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 10:58:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , Cong Ding References: <201212101118.08463.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <201212141133.50312.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> <20121215172540.GB2589@local> In-Reply-To: <20121215172540.GB2589@local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <201212171058.03013.vitas@nppfactor.kiev.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Saturday 15 December 2012 19:25:40 Hans J. Koch wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:33:50AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote: > > Hans, why do you want to put in this patch, which is dealing with > > memory-freeing issues only, completely unrelated functional changes? > > Because during review of your patch we happened to find another issue > a few lines up and down. Why not fix it on the way? > Because my heart is not with your solution of irq-related problem. I can't do it. > If you like, make it two patches, one with your memory-freeing issue > and one "Remove irq tracking" or something like that. I've done exactly that. The series of two patches. First [patch 1/2] - deals exclusively with memory freeing issues and you have no objections to it. Second [patch 2/2] which we disagreed upon - deals with irq-related issues. > That's just > three or four lines difference, I'd even accept it if it were only > one patch. > > I don't want to fix one thing now and leave the other one unresolved. > That would just be a waste of time. Me too. But we have different vision of the solution to the irq-related issue. That's why I won't write the irq-related part. Also, I don't understand, why do you want two unrelated fixes in one patch? When they are separated, they are easier to discuss, study and revert if needed. > > To be clear, I have no objections regarding your memory freeing ideas. So, why not to stop here and accept this one patch? I won't write the irq-related part anyway, as my heart is with the solution in [patch 2/2] and you disagree with it. So, the irq-related part should be done by someone else. Maybe by you, why not?