On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 03:40:55PM +0400, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
quoted text
> Hi David.
> 
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 06:15:37PM -0500, David Fries (david@fries.net) wrote:
> > This is more to point out the bug in w1_slave_read_id, the next patch
> > rewrites the routine.
> > 
> > w1.c 1.15
> ... 
> > w1.c 1.16
> 
> 
> That is what I talked about. I agree with your analysis of the problem
> and I agree with fixes. But I do not agree with how you created them:
> why do we ever neen 1.15 version, since immediately after that we have
> 1.16 which completely rewrite what was done in previous one?
> This applies to the whole patchset: there are essentially several bug
> fixes and several features, so separate them into several patches, which
> do not collide with each other in the above way.

The old patch 14/35 and 15/35 was the only place I know of where I
fixed the bug, then replaced it wholesale with something better.
Several bugs, a few features, lots of patches, go figure.

-- 
David Fries <david@fries.net>
http://fries.net/~david/ (PGP encryption key available)
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/