Re: [PATCH[[2.5][3-11] update dvb subsystem core

[Michael Hunold <hunold@convergence.de>]

Hello Christoph,

> That okay in principle, but I'd like to ask you nicely to not touch any
> devfs-related stuff currently.  I'ts in flux and any external change
> makes my life in cleaning up the mess a lot harder.

The problem was that the devices disappeared. I did not realize that you 
did a typo and they were created at another place, though.

So I rewrote the code for both 2.4 and 2.5 and it worked again.

>>I understand. But delaying the dvb updates just because a few calls to 
>>the devfs subsystem (which are now separated by #ifdefs and can easily 
>>be found) is not a good option either, or is it?

> I think it is :)  Esepcially as you don't just add ifdefs (which give
> me lots of rejects and you much uglier code than just using the
> compat header I'll send to lkml once I'm done with the API changes) but
> you also change the code that's ifdefed for 2.5 to reverse change I
> did.  There is a reason why I removed every occurance of devfs_handle_t
> from all drivers and the particular reason is that it will go away in
> the next series of patches.

Ok, I understand.

I promise that I don't touch the devfs related code anymore. But, how do 
we proceed in general?

Will the other patches be applied and who does that for which tree?
Shall I resend the patches where you had objections?

CU
Michael.