Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:30:16 -0500 (CDT) | From | <> | Subject | Re: radeonfb patch for 2.4.22... |
| |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 ajoshi@kernel.crashing.org wrote: > > > > > Hi Marcelo, > > > > Is there any particular reason why you decided to merge Ben H.'s radeonfb > > update instead of the one I sent you? > > I've decided to CC lkml because I think there are other people interested > in this discussion. > > I merged his version because he sent me your update (0.1.8) plus his code > (which are useful fixes he has been working on).
Which is what the original 0.1.8 patch included, his fixes were included.
> > It seems things are broken now due to a missing header, but he also sent > me that.
There was no missing header, if you see the patch I sent you (about 3 times), the header file is in there.
> > Do you have any objections to his fixes ? >
Besides the obvious version changes and difficulty maintaining a driver where anyone seems to be able to change it in the official tree, the objections were deteremined and fixed in the patch I sent you.
Refresh my memory as it seems things have changed in kernel patch submission process:
There is someone called a driver author or maintainer, this person recieves patches for fixes from various people, he/she then compiles them into a single patch and submits it to the kernel tree maintiner. However nowdays it seems the kernel tree maintainer has the descretion to accept patches from anyone how puts up a fight, is this the case nowdays?
If so then please let me know, so I don't waste anymore of my time on this driver and let someone else play these silly games and maintain it.
ani
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |