From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oliver Hartkopp Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/5] include: Move includes copied from the Linux kernel into include/linux Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:34:23 +0100 Message-ID: <52DE5B3F.3010900@hartkopp.net> References: <1389888754-23013-1-git-send-email-mkl@pengutronix.de> <1389888754-23013-6-git-send-email-mkl@pengutronix.de> <20140116192818.GC25911@pengutronix.de> <52D85910.8000200@pengutronix.de> <20140117133709.GD25911@pengutronix.de> <52D93885.5040109@pengutronix.de> <20140117203605.GF25911@pengutronix.de> <52DA7106.5000300@hartkopp.net> <20140121095337.GR25911@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.217]:61193 "EHLO mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754360AbaAULea (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jan 2014 06:34:30 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20140121095337.GR25911@pengutronix.de> Sender: linux-can-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Uwe_Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Marc Kleine-Budde Cc: linux-can@vger.kernel.org On 21.01.2014 10:53, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 01:18:14PM +0100, Oliver Hartkopp wrote: >> On 17.01.2014 21:36, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > I don't see a real reason here, but I read between the lines that you > prefer isotp to go into the kernel directly instead of into can-utils > first. We obviously have different ways to think/discuss :-( - Yes, isotp is intended for mainline - isotp.h will not change when it goes into mainline - therefore can-utils can rely on the existing isotp.h - therefore isotp.h can stay together with other includes in can-utils IMO it does not make sense to kick out the isotp tools just because of = the fact that isotp is not in mainline today. Alternatively we could split the isotp related stuff into another git r= epo, e.g. can-isotp-utils and merge them again at the point when isotp is in= mainline. > Anyhow, what I care for is to be able to package can-utils for Debian= =2E Yes. That would be nice indeed. > That's what I can do once the updated headers hit can-utils so IMO we > can stop arguing even if we don't agree 100%. I hope I was able to focus the discussion some lines before. Don't know= if it's worth the effort to kick out the isotp stuff and merge it later on= =2E > @Marc or Oliver: Can you please give me a ping as soon as the headers > hit your public repo. Thanks. Indeed I would vote for your latest patch set (v5) as the only missing = thing there would be to move isotp.h from include/socketcan/can/isotp.h to include/linux/can/isotp.h and delete the socketcan directory then. In Marcs patch set (v6) the license updates got lost at some point. Best regards, Oliver