On Saturday 15 December 2012 19:25:40 Hans J. Koch wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:33:50AM +0200, Vitalii Demianets wrote: > > Hans, why do you want to put in this patch, which is dealing with > > memory-freeing issues only, completely unrelated functional changes? > > Because during review of your patch we happened to find another issue > a few lines up and down. Why not fix it on the way? >
Because my heart is not with your solution of irq-related problem. I can't do it. > If you like, make it two patches, one with your memory-freeing issue > and one "Remove irq tracking" or something like that. I've done exactly that. The series of two patches. First [patch 1/2] - deals exclusively with memory freeing issues and you have no objections to it. Second [patch 2/2] which we disagreed upon - deals with irq-related issues. > That's just > three or four lines difference, I'd even accept it if it were only > one patch. > > I don't want to fix one thing now and leave the other one unresolved. > That would just be a waste of time. Me too. But we have different vision of the solution to the irq-related issue. That's why I won't write the irq-related part. Also, I don't understand, why do you want two unrelated fixes in one patch? When they are separated, they are easier to discuss, study and revert if needed. > > To be clear, I have no objections regarding your memory freeing ideas. So, why not to stop here and accept this one patch? I won't write the irq-related part anyway, as my heart is with the solution in [patch 2/2] and you disagree with it. So, the irq-related part should be done by someone else. Maybe by you, why not? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
