[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20101116.091443.226753420.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:14:43 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: tomoya-linux@....okisemi.com
Cc: wg@...ndegger.com, w.sang@...gutronix.de, chripell@...e.org,
21cnbao@...il.com, sameo@...ux.intel.com,
socketcan-core@...ts.berlios.de, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, qi.wang@...el.com,
yong.y.wang@...el.com, andrew.chih.howe.khor@...el.com,
joel.clark@...el.com, kok.howg.ewe@...el.com,
masa-korg@....okisemi.com, margie.foster@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add
Flow control/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LEC
macro/Move MSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Add
prefix PCH_
Way too many changes in one patch.
Please post one that fixes the endianness issues.
One that fixes the register interface seperation.
One that adds flow control processing.
etc.
When you combine many tasks into one patch it's impossible
to bisect through your changes to debug problems in order
to figure out which changed introduced a bug.
I am not applying this, and I will not apply your patches
until you split them up properly.
You may think that there is zero value in this, but there
is huge value in it for anyone who tries to debug your
changes in the future. Right now you are making that a
nearly impossible task.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists