From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] watchdog: cleanup a bit omap_wdt.c Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 02:30:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20080922093032.GB28866@atomide.com> References: <1221820359-8943-1-git-send-email-felipe.balbi@nokia.com> <200809201018.42127.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080920180018.GD9873@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <200809211845.42990.david-b@pacbell.net> <20080922075922.GD17746@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-01-bos.mailhop.org ([63.208.196.178]:54659 "EHLO mho-01-bos.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751550AbYIVJat (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 05:30:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080922075922.GD17746@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: David Brownell , Felipe Balbi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Andrew Morton , "George G. Davis" * Russell King - ARM Linux [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