On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Margit Schubert-While wrote:
..
> The patch has wrong line numbers. Doesn't take into account the stacked up
> netdev changes. (Therefore CC'ing Jeff Garzik)
sure the kj patches are against mainline.
> This breaks 2.4 compatibility.
> So either backport to 2.4 or Nish can take over prism54 2.4 maintenance ;-)
can't remember the last time when Randy submitted janitorial patches to
2.4.x, but it's long ago. 2.4 is in maintenance mode.
> Don't say a backport is not possible/reasonable, it happened with
> netdev_priv().
> (In 2.4.27; At least there, we have HAVE_NETDEV_PRIV).
there must have been serious reasons for that.
> If this is going to be forced, can we at least have a
> define HAVE_MSLEEP in delay.h ?
>
> I am somewhat confused by the second part of the patch.
> What has that got to do with msleep ?
basically a lot, because as prism54 lots of drivers forgo/et to set
there state when calling schedule_timeout().
> Actually, the fix would appear to be correct, but that is a seperate issue
> and nothing to do with msleep.
> (Prims54 developers -> I'll take a look over the weekend)
great, please also remove the unused TRACE macro.
(patch was sent to netdev on 3. Sept).
the kj mailing list got another submission to correct
the __FUNCTION__ use their. :)
> I am sceptical about the whole msleep patchset as, by their own admission,
> the janitors have/can not (no hardware) test the majority of the changes.
> Even more worrying is that incorrect code has directly appeared in
> mainline kernel BK.
the named small errors were quickly corrected.
it's up to the driver MAINTAINER to prove us wrong.
we got lots of ack in between.
--
maks
kernel janitor http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/
|