From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [git pull] IDE updates #4 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:57:14 +0400 Message-ID: <49009EDA.2030707@ru.mvista.com> References: <200810212100.52985.bzolnier@gmail.com> <58cb370e0810220514x419c9669jba1b7be942d3644a@mail.gmail.com> <48FF2047.6000509@ru.mvista.com> <200810222337.42218.bzolnier@gmail.com> <48FFAFBB.8020709@ru.mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from h155.mvista.com ([63.81.120.155]:12336 "EHLO imap.sh.mvista.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751953AbYJWP5e (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:57:34 -0400 In-Reply-To: <48FFAFBB.8020709@ru.mvista.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello, I wrote: >>>> and number of new submitted patches is < 10 (I'll take >>>> care of fixing them up, ditto for all other new stuff that will be >>>> using old >>>> naming scheme). >>> Thanks for clarifying this. >>> This rename only added more uncertainty for my pending patchset >>> (which had been already dependant on at least TX4939 driver which >>> keeps being recast by Atsushi and being stale in pata-2.6 series) as >>> I can't predict when you and Linus will merge the changes and this is >>> getting on my nerves, as I don't have time on any extra rework and >>> I'm running out of time with the submission. I know I should have >>> done this earlier and >> Maybe some parts could be submitted separately? >> (so keeping them up-to-date in pata-2.6 would be my task) > 2 (maybe even 3) out of 4 can be but that doesn't make much sense > already (and would incur the patch reordering for me) -- the best thing > you can do is to merge ASAP the last verison of TX4939 which has my ACK. > I'm not sure about TX4938 driver yet -- will look at it after some sleep... Still haven't looked at it... too little sleep and incuring headache. :-/ >> Also I didn't know anything about your patchset and its >> dependency on TX4939, otherwise I'll be pushing things in > The patchset consists of a large patch moving read_sff_dma_status() to > its porper place, one small preparatory patch, and 2 followup patches, > so unfortunately it's dependent on TX4939 in its main patch (worse, the > relevant part of this driver has changed after your last merged driver > version)... >> different order or even skip this pull request if needed >> (TX493x drivers are new stuff and were still under review, >> such things can be also submitted after the merge window >> closes so they were given the lowest priority). > Unfortunately, that driver has been submitted first back 9/09, long > before my patchset was even created, so the dependence was just natural. I could also rip out TX4939 part from the patch and leave Atsushi to deal with the fallout (though I could give him the ripped out part to simply be merged to the driver) if you would queue my patchset ahead of the driver. Though I feel it's too late now for my patchset to get into 2.6.28 the way things have been happening... :-/ MBR, Sergei