From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Sometimes the ISDN chip only controls the D-channel Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 02:50:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120503.025059.1771068683530938115.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1335613404-10187-4-git-send-email-kkeil@linux-pingi.de> <20120501.133007.569588994121475807.davem@davemloft.net> <4FA2265D.6040000@linux-pingi.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org To: kkeil@linux-pingi.de Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([198.137.202.13]:40384 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752459Ab2ECGvH (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 May 2012 02:51:07 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FA2265D.6040000@linux-pingi.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Karsten Keil Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 08:31:57 +0200 > I did put the additional PCM infrastructure in this series, because > the approval test was done with it in place. > I did plan the update of the low level drivers in a separate patchset > from the beginning. > > What do you prefer, adding the driver part now, as additional patch, or > removing this additional infrastruckture part and submit it in a later > series ? I feel like I'm talking to a wall. A patch should do one, and only one thing. It should not have changes which are unrelated to that one thing. What part of this is so hard to understand? To make matters worse, you didn't even make a mention of those unrelated changes in your commit message. So that patch was bogus on at least two counts.