[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Upstreaming patches [Was: RFC: upstreaming debian/patches/exec_filen

From: Samuel Thibault
Subject: Re: Upstreaming patches [Was: RFC: upstreaming debian/patches/exec_filename_* and the dde stuff]
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 13:43:10 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30)

Zhang Cong, le Mon 07 Apr 2014 19:36:02 +0800, a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>     Samuel Thibault, le Mon 07 Apr 2014 11:31:33 +0200, a écrit :
>     > Zhang Cong, le Mon 07 Apr 2014 17:25:34 +0800, a écrit :
>     > > The one who do this  need have the full plan,
>     >
>     > I don't see why one would need a full plan.
>     Putting it another way, I don't think anybody has the full plan.  Which
>     is fine, all medium-to-big projects are like that.
> Driver related idea may need a full plan:) 

Again, no.  Drivers can work the way they prefer.  The driver
infrastructure itself doesn't need a "bigplan", it is parts of it which
need their own.  For instance, the IRQ issue I mentioned has its plan
by itself, and it doesn't need to interfere with the physical memory
allocation issue.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]