On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:19:51 -0500
> Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>It seems noone who reviewed the Supe
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 10:19:51 -0500
Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> >>now two modules "scx200"
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
They are almost mutually exlusive(SuperIO contains more advanced),
so I do not see a
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 11:20 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:27:43PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >...
> > I greatly appreciate your comments, and they were addressed.
> > Part of exported symbols are unexported, patch is just waiting to be sent,
>
> Ah, sorry. I only saw
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:27:43PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>...
> I greatly appreciate your comments, and they were addressed.
> Part of exported symbols are unexported, patch is just waiting to be sent,
Ah, sorry. I only saw that the patch I sent two months ago still
applies completely (e
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:19:41 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >...
> > Btw, where was comments about w1, kernel connector and acrypto?
> > They were presented several times in lkml and all are completely new
> > sub
[Voluntarily skipping a large part of the discussion so as to stop
wasting everyone's time and focus on the one technical point I am
interested in.]
Hi Evgeniy,
> As I saw from different documentation - logical devices itself are the
> same.
>
> And it is the same for superio standard.
>
> For
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:12:34PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:14:34AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > That's simply not true. The amount of patches submitted is extremly
> > huge and the reviewers don't have time to look at everythning.
> >
> > If no one replies i
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 20:20:27 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Voluntarily skipping a large part of the discussion so as to stop
> wasting everyone's time and focus on the one technical point I am
> interested in.]
>
> Hi Evgeniy,
>
> > As I saw from different documentation - logi
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:59:17PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:14 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> > > or it is not interesting
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 07:38:48PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>...
> Btw, where was comments about w1, kernel connector and acrypto?
> They were presented several times in lkml and all are completely new
> subsystems.
> Should I stop developing just because I did not get comments?
>...
I sent
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 09:00 -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:17 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:14 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > > I have one ru
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 15:34 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Evgeniy,
>
> > I presented the code.
> > Several times in special mail list.
>
> That's true. Except that the second time (at least) you didn't find
> anyone to review it. Also note that your patches are about superio, gpio
> and now acc
Hi Evgeniy,
> I presented the code.
> Several times in special mail list.
That's true. Except that the second time (at least) you didn't find
anyone to review it. Also note that your patches are about superio, gpio
and now access bus. The list is dedicated to hardware monitoring. This
is no exac
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:59:17 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:14 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> > > or it is no
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 10:14:34AM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> That's simply not true. The amount of patches submitted is extremly
> huge and the reviewers don't have time to look at everythning.
>
> If no one replies it simply means no one has looked at it in enough
> detail to comment yet
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:14 +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> > or it is not interesting for anyone, and thus noone objects.
>
> That's simply not true. The amou
On Wed, 2005-01-26 at 10:55 +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> Hi Evgeniy,
>
> > > So I suspect that this update at least was never reviewed by anyone (on
> > > the sensors list at least).
> >
> > I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> > or it is not interesting for anyone, an
On Wed, Jan 26, 2005 at 01:35:56AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> or it is not interesting for anyone, and thus noone objects.
That's simply not true. The amount of patches submitted is extremly
huge and the reviewers don't have
Hi Evgeniy,
> > So I suspect that this update at least was never reviewed by anyone (on
> > the sensors list at least).
>
> I have one rule - if noone answers that it means noone objects,
> or it is not interesting for anyone, and thus noone objects.
Broken rule IMHO. This might be fine for your
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 22:40:51 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Evgeniy & all,
>
> > > 1* This was 5 months ago. I'd expect Evgeniy's code to have
> > > significantly evolved since, so an additional review now would
> > > certainly be welcome.
> >
> > superio core was not changed
Hi Evgeniy & all,
> > 1* This was 5 months ago. I'd expect Evgeniy's code to have
> > significantly evolved since, so an additional review now would
> > certainly be welcome.
>
> superio core was not changed much, all related changes were posted
> into lm_sensors mail list and discussed.
Well,
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:59:18 +0100
Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> > As previously mentioned, these patches have had that, on the sensors
> > mailing list. Lots of review and comments went into them there, and
> > the code was reworked quite a lot based on it.
>
> That's r
Hi all,
> As previously mentioned, these patches have had that, on the sensors
> mailing list. Lots of review and comments went into them there, and
> the code was reworked quite a lot based on it.
That's right, I did actually review Evgeniy's code some times ago, as
can be seen here:
http://arc
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:02:56PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > It would be a lot more productive to follow the normal rules, though.
> > That is posting them on lkml as properly split up patches, and with
> > proper descriptions of what they're doing.
>
> As previously mentioned, these patches have
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:47:51PM +, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:34:42PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > And as for the "these patches have never been reviewed" comments, that's
> > why I put them in my tree, and have them show up in -mm. It's getting
> > them a wider expo
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 01:34:42PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> And as for the "these patches have never been reviewed" comments, that's
> why I put them in my tree, and have them show up in -mm. It's getting
> them a wider exposure and finding out these kinds of issues. So the
> process is working pr
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:54:49PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
Sorry about this. Andrew warning me about this bug, and I saw it myself
with the depmod errors. I'll take Evgeniy's p
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:54:49PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
Did anyone review them?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a mes
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:33:53 +
Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 06:54:49PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> > now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
>
> Did anyone review them?
As
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:32:19 -0500
Dmitry Torokhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > lsmod in bugreports giving unspecific results, for example.
> > > >
> > > > If you load scx200 from superio subsystem, then obviously you can not
> > > > use old i2c/acb modules which require old scx200.
> > >
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 22:39:25 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:05:46 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:23:02PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:41:11 +0100
> > > Jurriaan <[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:03:20 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:19:29PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:29:26 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrot
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:05:46 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:23:02PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:41:11 +0100
> > Jurriaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Mon, Jan 24
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:23:02PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:41:11 +0100
> Jurriaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > > Adrian Bunk <
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 10:19:29PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:29:26 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wro
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:41:11 +0100
Jurriaan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO pat
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:29:26 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that th
From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> > now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
>
> They
On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 09:43:36PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> > now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
>
> They are almost mutually
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:54:49 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
> now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
They are almost mutually exlusive(SuperIO contains more advanced),
so I do not see any problem here.
Onl
It seems noone who reviewed the SuperIO patches noticed that there are
now two modules "scx200" in the kernel...
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er s
42 matches
Mail list logo
