lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Sep]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 2.6.32 -mm merge plans
    On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:03:57 +0900
    Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org> wrote:

    > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 04:15:35PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > > mtd-make-onenand-genericc-more-generic.patch
    > > mtd-nand-add-page-parameter-to-all-read_page-read_page_raw-apis.patch
    > > mtd-nand-add-new-ecc-mode-ecc_hw_oob_first.patch
    > > mtd-nand-davinci-add-4-bit-ecc-support-for-large-page-nand-chips.patch
    > > mtd-nand-davinci-add-4-bit-ecc-support-for-large-page-nand-chips-update.patch
    > > mtd-jffs2-fix-read-buffer-overflow.patch
    > > mtd-prevent-a-read-from-eraseregions.patch
    > > mtd-prevent-a-read-from-regions.patch
    > > mtd-jedec_probe-fix-nec-upd29f064115-detection.patch
    > > mtdpart-memory-accessor-interface-for-mtd-layer.patch
    > >
    > > -> dwmw2
    > >
    > Regarding mtd-make-onenand-genericc-more-generic.patch, I'm not really
    > sure what happened. To recap:
    >
    > It was posted to the mtd list here:
    >
    > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-August/026805.html
    >
    > Kyungmin objected to the driver name change here:
    >
    > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-August/026807.html
    >
    > I pointed out that the rough rationale for the name change here:
    >
    > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-August/026808.html
    >
    > and offered to redo the patch keeping the old name if Kyungmin felt the
    > rationale wasn't valid, but received no reply. Subsequently, Artem
    > mentioned that he had merged it in to his l2-mtd-2.6.git tree here:
    >
    > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2009-August/026866.html
    >
    > which subsequently seems to not actually have happened.
    >
    > This is a pretty trivial patch, and I don't mind respinning it in
    > whatever form folks are content with. I had assumed given the mention
    > that it had been merged in to the l2 tree that the rationale was
    > sufficient for merging.

    I don't think that Artem's tree is in linux-next, so I have no
    visibility of what's happening with that patch.

    I do think that Artem's tree should be in linux-next.

    I guess I'll just hose the patch at dwmw2 and will see what happens. I
    sent it on Aug 6, with no effect.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2009-09-16 02:21    [W:0.023 / U:123.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site