Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Daniel Walker]

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 00:32 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Daniel Walker wrote 07.09.09 16:30:
> > Yeah, it looks like the whole file needs a checkpatch clean up..
> Sounds
> like your not willing to do that?
> 
> It's not a question of willingness. You may notice I did a lot of
> cleanup work already. But it's very time consuming work, and there has
> been more important work to attend to first.
> 
> > Usually if a checkpatch cleanup comes
> first prior to all your other changes , it doesn't usually cloud the
> rest of the changes..
> 
> Sure. But that would mean postponing the merging of bugfixes until
> someone finds the time to do a complete checkpatch cleanup of the
> affected code. I don't think that's a sensible approach.

You shouldn't be adding any new checkpatch errors, but you currently
are .. Just clean up the individual patches w/o the entire gigaset
driver, that should be do-able (it's even a basic submission
requirement). The other issue is that your adding new files which aren't
clean, those can certainly be cleaned up.

Daniel

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[David Miller]

From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:47:57 -0700

> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 00:32 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Daniel Walker wrote 07.09.09 16:30:
>> > Yeah, it looks like the whole file needs a checkpatch clean up..
>> Sounds
>> like your not willing to do that?
>> 
>> It's not a question of willingness. You may notice I did a lot of
>> cleanup work already. But it's very time consuming work, and there has
>> been more important work to attend to first.
>> 
>> > Usually if a checkpatch cleanup comes
>> first prior to all your other changes , it doesn't usually cloud the
>> rest of the changes..
>> 
>> Sure. But that would mean postponing the merging of bugfixes until
>> someone finds the time to do a complete checkpatch cleanup of the
>> affected code. I don't think that's a sensible approach.
> 
> You shouldn't be adding any new checkpatch errors, but you currently
> are .. Just clean up the individual patches w/o the entire gigaset
> driver, that should be do-able (it's even a basic submission
> requirement). The other issue is that your adding new files which aren't
> clean, those can certainly be cleaned up.

Right, this is a very reasonable request.

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Tilman Schmidt]

Von: "David Miller" <davem-fT/PcQaiUtIeIZ0/mPfg9Q@public.gmane.org>
An: dwalker-zu3NM2574RrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org
Cc: tilman-ZTO5kqT2PaM@public.gmane.org; linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; netdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org; i4ldeveloper-JX7+OpRa80SjiSfgN6Y1Ib39b6g2fGNp@public.gmane.org; hjlipp-S0/GAf8tV78@public.gmane.org
Gesendet: 10.09.09 05:51
Betreff: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

> From: Daniel Walker <dwalker-zu3NM2574RrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:47:57 -0700

> On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 00:32 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Daniel Walker wrote 07.09.09 16:30:
>> > Yeah, it looks like the whole file needs a checkpatch clean up..
>> Sounds
>> like your not willing to do that?
>> 
>> It's not a question of willingness. You may notice I did a lot of
>> cleanup work already. But it's very time consuming work, and there has
>> been more important work to attend to first.
>> 
>> > Usually if a checkpatch cleanup comes
>> first prior to all your other changes , it doesn't usually cloud the
>> rest of the changes..
>> 
>> Sure. But that would mean postponing the merging of bugfixes until
>> someone finds the time to do a complete checkpatch cleanup of the
>> affected code. I don't think that's a sensible approach.
> 
> You shouldn't be adding any new checkpatch errors, but you currently
> are .. Just clean up the individual patches w/o the entire gigaset
> driver, that should be do-able (it's even a basic submission
> requirement). The other issue is that your adding new files which aren't
> clean, those can certainly be cleaned up.

> Right, this is a very reasonable request.

Then so be it. Will do as soon as time permits.

T.

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Tilman Schmidt]

Daniel Walker wrote 07.09.09 16:30:
> Yeah, it looks like the whole file needs a checkpatch clean up.. Sounds
like your not willing to do that?

It's not a question of willingness. You may notice I did a lot of cleanup work already. But it's very time consuming work, and there has been more important work to attend to first.

> Usually if a checkpatch cleanup comes
first prior to all your other changes , it doesn't usually cloud the
rest of the changes..

Sure. But that would mean postponing the merging of bugfixes until someone finds the time to do a complete checkpatch cleanup of the affected code. I don't think that's a sensible approach.

Thanks,
Tilman

[PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Tilman Schmidt]

Dave,

following is a series of patches for the Gigaset driver which I would
appreciate getting merged into kernel release 2.6.32.

The first one is a bugfix I had already submitted for 2.6.31 but which
seems to have fallen through the cracks. Please disregard if it's
already present your tree.

The next eight patches provide various small bugfixes, error handling
and documentation improvements.

The final three patches add an alternative interface to the driver,
connecting to the Kernel CAPI subsystem instead of the obsolescent
ISDN4Linux subsystem. They have been presented on the i4ldeveloper
mailing list and didn't draw any protests. (In fact, no comments at
all. I'm determined to take that as a positive sign.)

Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.

Thanks,
Tilman

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Daniel Walker]

On Sun, 2009-09-06 at 20:58 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Dave,
> 
> following is a series of patches for the Gigaset driver which I would
> appreciate getting merged into kernel release 2.6.32.
> 
> The first one is a bugfix I had already submitted for 2.6.31 but which
> seems to have fallen through the cracks. Please disregard if it's
> already present your tree.
> 
> The next eight patches provide various small bugfixes, error handling
> and documentation improvements.
> 
> The final three patches add an alternative interface to the driver,
> connecting to the Kernel CAPI subsystem instead of the obsolescent
> ISDN4Linux subsystem. They have been presented on the i4ldeveloper
> mailing list and didn't draw any protests. (In fact, no comments at
> all. I'm determined to take that as a positive sign.)
> 
> Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.

patches 6,7,10, and 12 all have checkpatch errors. Could you fix those? 

Daniel

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Tilman Schmidt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 752 bytes --]

Daniel,

thanks for taking a look at my patches.

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:26:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> patches 6,7,10, and 12 all have checkpatch errors. Could you fix those? 

I have reissued patch 7, exchanging the "static" and "inline" keywords
as requested.

The other patches I'd much prefer to keep as they are. The "ERRORs"
checkpatch.pl reported for them are results of keeping to the existing
formatting of the patched files. Completely reformatting them would
cloud the actual changes made by the patches.

Thanks,
Tilman

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                    E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 254 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Daniel Walker]

On Mon, 2009-09-07 at 11:07 +0200, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> thanks for taking a look at my patches.
> 
> On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 18:26:46 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > patches 6,7,10, and 12 all have checkpatch errors. Could you fix those? 
> 
> I have reissued patch 7, exchanging the "static" and "inline" keywords
> as requested.
> 
> The other patches I'd much prefer to keep as they are. The "ERRORs"
> checkpatch.pl reported for them are results of keeping to the existing
> formatting of the patched files. Completely reformatting them would
> cloud the actual changes made by the patches.

Yeah, it looks like the whole file needs a checkpatch clean up.. Sounds
like your not willing to do that? Usually if a checkpatch cleanup comes
first prior to all your other changes , it doesn't usually cloud the
rest of the changes..

Daniel

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[David Miller]

From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
Date: Sun,  6 Sep 2009 20:58:52 +0200 (CEST)

> Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.

So do we have an ISDN maintainer or not?

If Karsten is still maintaining things, your work should
go through him not me.

This also applies to the 4 part CAPI patch set you sent as
well.

I'm tossing these from patchwork as they're not my realm.
:-)

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Tilman Schmidt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 896 bytes --]

David Miller schrieb:
> From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
> Date: Sun,  6 Sep 2009 20:58:52 +0200 (CEST)
> 
>> Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.
> 
> So do we have an ISDN maintainer or not?
> 
> If Karsten is still maintaining things, your work should
> go through him not me.

Last atime I asked, you said me you would take ISDN patches.
Could you two please sort this out? I am just a humble driver
maintainer knowing nothing about maintainer politics.

> This also applies to the 4 part CAPI patch set you sent as
> well.
> 
> I'm tossing these from patchwork as they're not my realm.
> :-)

I guess I have no recourse against that.
:-(

T.

-- 
Tilman Schmidt                    E-Mail: tilman@imap.cc
Bonn, Germany
Diese Nachricht besteht zu 100% aus wiederverwerteten Bits.
Ungeöffnet mindestens haltbar bis: (siehe Rückseite)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 254 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[David Miller]

From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:11:37 +0200

> David Miller schrieb:
>> From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
>> Date: Sun,  6 Sep 2009 20:58:52 +0200 (CEST)
>> 
>>> Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.
>> 
>> So do we have an ISDN maintainer or not?
>> 
>> If Karsten is still maintaining things, your work should
>> go through him not me.
> 
> Last atime I asked, you said me you would take ISDN patches.
> Could you two please sort this out?

Sure.

Karsten, are you going to handle ISDN and ISDN driver patches
and queue them up to me?

> I am just a humble driver maintainer knowing nothing about
> maintainer politics.

Understood.

Re: [PATCH 00/12] Gigaset driver patches for 2.6.32

[Karsten Keil]

On Montag, 7. September 2009 11:18:08 David Miller wrote:
> From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
> Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:11:37 +0200
>
> > David Miller schrieb:
> >> From: Tilman Schmidt <tilman@imap.cc>
> >> Date: Sun,  6 Sep 2009 20:58:52 +0200 (CEST)
> >>
> >>> Would you please take these into your net tree for 2.6.32.
> >>
> >> So do we have an ISDN maintainer or not?
> >>
> >> If Karsten is still maintaining things, your work should
> >> go through him not me.
> >
> > Last atime I asked, you said me you would take ISDN patches.
> > Could you two please sort this out?
>
> Sure.
>
> Karsten, are you going to handle ISDN and ISDN driver patches
> and queue them up to me?
>

Yes, I will  put them in my git tree after review and give you a ping.

> > I am just a humble driver maintainer knowing nothing about
> > maintainer politics.
>
> Understood.