Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: cleanup a bit omap_wdt.c

[Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [080922 01:00]:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 06:45:42PM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> > Review rarely happens all at once, unless very few people look at
> > the code.  Discouraging review is *extremely* strange.
> 
> I'm not discouraging review.  I'm saying that making inappropriate
> comments isn't helpful.
> 
> Yes, your comments are right, but are they appropriate to getting
> the OMAP watchdog drivers updated in mainline, or are they more
> appropriate in a general sense to all watchdog drivers, and therefore
> should be separate from that task?
> 
> > > My point is that we currently have a BIG problem, and that is the OMAP
> > > fork being so far out of line with mainline, it isn't funny.
> > 
> > I call it a "branch" myself; "fork" sounds confrontational.
> 
> Call it what you want.
> 
> > When more of the arch/arm/* core bits merge -- like the clock and
> > power domain updates ISTR you wanted to hold back -- then the rest
> > starts to make sense upstream.
> 
> I never said that - you're twisting my words as normal.
> 
> > Yes, there are two unresolved issues in patch #1 which you seem
> > to have successfully buried with your flamage.  Easy fixes, just
> > strike a line and truncate a path.  The sort of thing that often
> > gets queued in the MM tree as a "fixup" and then merged into a
> > main patch.
> 
> Yet again you use confrontational language, inflaming this discussion.
> 
> Okay, I give up.  Folk here can carry on struggling to get their code
> into mainline with endless reviews and getting fed up with having to
> constantly rework the code over and over again.

Hey, please don't give up. You two easily get caught into infinite
mail loops, it's not necessarily omap related ;)

> Clearly my views aren't welcome.

Not true, we _really_ appreciate your comments and help. Same goes for
Dave.

Tony