From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:43244 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753509Ab0JKTKd (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:10:33 -0400 Message-ID: <4CB3611F.1030108@infradead.org> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:10:23 -0300 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Ellingsworth CC: Hans Verkuil , linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [GIT PATCHES FOR 2.6.37] Move V4L2 locking into the core framework References: <201009261425.00146.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> <201010111740.14658.hverkuil@xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Em 11-10-2010 15:05, David Ellingsworth escreveu: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Hans Verkuil wrote: >> On Sunday, October 10, 2010 19:33:48 David Ellingsworth wrote: >>> Mauro, you should be ashamed for accepting a series that obviously has issues. >> >> Hardly obvious, and definitely not his fault. >> > > This comment was more general, since Mauro admitted having to make > changes to your series to get it to compile under i386 architectures. > So what? I always test if the tree compiles before sending the thing upstream. My compilation is against i686 architecture, as it enables more drivers than other architectures. Rejecting a patch series just because of the lack of a typecast to remove a warning on an architecture is not a good reason. I really prefer to apply the series and then ask (or make a fix) to one or two lines, than to have to dig the entire patch series again on a rev 2 of the entire patch series. Examining a patch that fixes this issue is a way easier than having to review a series of 11 patches. Cheers, Mauro.