From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre-AIFe0yeh4nAAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
To: Jean Delvare <khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org>,
"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss-+umVssTZoCsb1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>,
balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org
Cc: linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org,
plagnioj-sclMFOaUSTBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org,
linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107130432.3309ffd6-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org>
On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare :
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
>>>>> You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
>>>>> pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
>>>> Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
>>>> replace the old driver.
>>>
>>> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
>>> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
>>> above.
>
> The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under
> his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps
> rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully
> rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code
> rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the
> old code completely first is certainly an option.
I agree with this.
--
Nicolas Ferre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107130432.3309ffd6@endymion.delvare>
On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare :
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
>>>>> You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
>>>>> pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
>>>> Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
>>>> replace the old driver.
>>>
>>> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
>>> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
>>> above.
>
> The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under
> his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps
> rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully
> rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code
> rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the
> old code completely first is certainly an option.
I agree with this.
--
Nicolas Ferre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>,
"Voss, Nikolaus" <N.Voss@weinmann.de>,
balbi@ti.com
Cc: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 13:49:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111107130432.3309ffd6@endymion.delvare>
On 11/07/2011 01:04 PM, Jean Delvare :
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0100, Voss, Nikolaus wrote:
>>>>> IMHO, you should split this patch into three or more smaller patches.
>>>>> You're doing lots of different things in one commit and it'll be a
>>>>> pain to bisect should this cause any issues to anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't split the patch because it is virtually a complete rewrite.
>>>> Due to the severe limitations of the old driver, I think it should
>>>> replace the old driver.
>>>
>>> The final decision is up to Ben and/or Jean but I think we should always have
>>> incremental patches, not sure if we should allow big patches for the reasons
>>> above.
>
> The final call is obviously to Ben, not me, as this driver falls under
> his jurisdiction. But for what it's worth, I consider the small-steps
> rule void when it comes to fixing a plain broken driver by almost fully
> rewriting it. The reviewer should really review the resulting code
> rather than the patch. If it makes everybody happier, then killing the
> old code completely first is certainly an option.
I agree with this.
--
Nicolas Ferre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-07 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-07 9:27 [PATCH V2] drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c: fix brokeness Nikolaus Voss
2011-11-07 9:47 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <20111107094701.GF4265-UiBtZHVXSwEVvW8u9ZQWYwjfymiNCTlR@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-07 10:01 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 10:01 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 10:04 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <20111107100446.GG4265-UiBtZHVXSwEVvW8u9ZQWYwjfymiNCTlR@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-07 11:06 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 11:06 ` Voss, Nikolaus
2011-11-07 11:35 ` Felipe Balbi
[not found] ` <EF2E73589CA71846A15D0B2CDF79505D087B38B2AB-qhZVaJ2D3XF9OWT4OSQXE9BPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-07 12:04 ` Jean Delvare
2011-11-07 12:04 ` Jean Delvare
2011-11-07 12:04 ` Jean Delvare
[not found] ` <20111107130432.3309ffd6-R0o5gVi9kd7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-07 12:49 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-11-07 12:49 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-11-07 12:49 ` Nicolas Ferre
[not found] ` <alpine.DEB.2.00.1111071019560.21431-vb1CFJ/PVqUnDeILM3HATdG/hX4sBvbD@public.gmane.org>
2011-11-07 16:36 ` Hubert Feurstein
2011-11-07 16:36 ` Hubert Feurstein
2011-11-07 16:36 ` Hubert Feurstein
2011-11-08 0:04 ` Ryan Mallon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4EB7D3C0.9070706@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre-aife0yeh4naavxtiumwx3w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=N.Voss-+umVssTZoCsb1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org \
--cc=balbi-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org \
--cc=ben-linux-elnMNo+KYs3YtjvyW6yDsg@public.gmane.org \
--cc=khali-PUYAD+kWke1g9hUCZPvPmw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=plagnioj-sclMFOaUSTBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.