Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] [resend][PATCHv2] staging: batman-adv: remove useless addr_to_string()

[Sven Eckelmann]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 02:41:37PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:16:37AM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 01:57:49PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:51:15PM +0200, Sven Eckelmann wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 06:47:44PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > > > > > Since all *printf() methods in the kernel understand '%pM'
> > > > > > > modifier the conversion to the string is useless beforehand.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Additionally this patch decreases batman_if structure by 20
> > > > > > > bytes.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for your patch. I have problems with compiling due to
> > > > > > other patches in the queue. I will fix that and recommend it as
> > > > > > patch for 2.6.38.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What do you mean by this?  It applies just fine to my tree, so why
> > > > > can't I take it now?
> > > > 
> > > > If you want then do so, but the stuff in batman-adv's master must be
> > > > fixed so they have to apply the v3 version of the patch and not the
> > > > v2 version Andy sent.
> > > 
> > > That's one of the problems with having an out-of-tree tree.  Please
> > > don't do that at all anymore.
> > 
> > I don't see a difference in a in-tree tree and and out-of-tree tree when
> > applying patches somewhere else out of order. In both situations we have
> > a merge conflict (not that the scm says "omg, i cannot merge it" but
> > that the thing doesn't compile after the merge).
> 
> Not true at all, the in-linux-next tree builds just fine with this
> patch.  In fact, it's now in linux-next already.

He? I never said that it breaks stuff in your staging tree.

> > I always thought that even when the source is in the kernel (or in
> > staging) that there are still a maintainer responsible for it. That this
> > person has to go through the patches and look if they do whatever they
> > claim to do and that this isn't against what the original implementation
> > had to do or should do.
> 
> Yes, but sometimes, especially for trivial patches, the maintainer is
> routed around and patches go in through other trees.
> 
> Remember a maintainer is not someone who can say "no" to all patches
> that comes in, sorry, we don't work that way.

What? I no batman-adv maintainer said no to patches on the lkml or other linux 
related mailing lists as far as I can remember, but postponed them or 
recommended changes.

There were patches dropped in the past which didn't make sense or created more 
problems than they solved - but that was even before batman-adv entered 
staging.

thanks,
	Sven

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.