Hey Ernesto, On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 09:24:15PM +0200, ext Ramos Falcon, Ernesto wrote: > >This patch seems to be doing a lot of things. Couldn't it have been > >split? > > > >Also, from the commit message it seems to implement a new feature, > >however, I heard it's supposed to fix memory corruption too. Is that > >true? If that's the case the code that fixes that would have to be > >separate. > > > >I understand this patch was already pushed to dspbridge branch, but I > >think such important changes should be properly recorded in the > >history. > > I agree important changes must be properly recorded but in this case > the patch introduces only one new feature and because of the way that > it is implemented using gpt8 overflow interrupt instead of mailbox to > inform about the MMU Fault, the problem of the memory corruption was > fixed indirectly, however these changes are part of the feature design > itself and I don't see the need to split this new feature.
In general, logically independent changes should end up as separate patches. Many times it looks like a patch cannot be split further, but with a little bit of creativity it usually can. I can think of one patch that switches to gpt8 overflow, and another one that actually shows the extra information. Anyway, I ask because we found some issues with the latest commits of dspbridge, and I would like to isolate the memory corruption fix just to be safe. Also, from that description it looks like there might be still a problem in the mailbox that is hidded by this patch... so it's more like a workaround, not really a fix. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
