Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: AddFlow control/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LECmacro/Move MSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Addprefix PCH_

From: David Miller
Date: Tue Nov 16 2010 - 12:14:24 EST

Next message: Randy Dunlap: "Re: [PATCH] 3c59x: fix build failure on !CONFIG_PCI"
Previous message: Lennart Poettering: "Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups"
In reply to: Wolfgang Grandegger: "Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flowcontrol/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LEC macro/MoveMSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Add prefix PCH_"
Next in thread: Wolfgang Grandegger: "Re: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v4] can: Topcliff: PCH_CAN driver: Add Flowcontrol/Fix Endianess issue/Separate IF register/Enumerate LEC macro/MoveMSI processing/Use BIT(X)/Change Message Object index/Add prefix PCH_"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/