On Sat, Oct 12, 2002, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>But again, I'd really rather see that kind of patch be independent of > >>the rest of these UHCI-only changes. > > My original suggestion, just to repeat, was to split out the > interrupts-can-queue patch to enable such a separate "remove > automagic" patch. > > > Maybe we should work at getting all of this merged in first? I'll work > > on splitting out the bits of Dan's patch that applies so we can get this > > done with. > > It seems maybe all three of us are agreed on that approach! > Dan was threatening to both resend a patch that'll apply, as > well as to split things out. > > Having browsed Dan's patch, I see his looked a lot like mine. > Even down to having picked some of the same new names! > > I'll send that patch along separately in a few minutes, since > there's as good a chance it'll make the next steps easier as > that it'll cause confusion, flamewars, and list meltdown... :)
Agreed :) JE ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
