On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
[[ Reply to Hans at end of this ]]
[[ Reply to Kris inline ]]
Hi,
I've CC'ed multimedia. We have the following diff to mixer.c. Can anyone tell
if it will have any negative consequences:
--- sys/dev/sound/pcm/mixer.c August 2008
+++
Hi,
OK. Based on this review thread I think we have agreed that:
* The ARM changes were already imported separately by warner
Great.
* the sound changes will not go in since they're unrelated to USB and
there are some unresolved questions there. It sounds like there are
real bugs
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
* How much of the userland support is incomplete or in flux, and what
functionality is missing for users of the usb2 code until it is finished?
The USB userland library is nearly complete. All it lacks is proper
documentation:
svn --username anonsvn --password
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
* How much of the userland support is incomplete or in flux, and what
functionality is missing for users of the usb2 code until it is
finished?
The USB userland library is nearly complete. All it lacks is proper
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
* How much of the userland support is incomplete or in flux, and what
functionality is missing for users of the usb2 code until it is
finished?
The USB userland library is nearly complete.
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
This raises the question of why the kernel changes need to be committed
now, and what benefit they bring in the absence of a compatible
userland. Shouldn't the commit happen after both kernel and userland
are
On 2008-Aug-19 22:19:14 +0200, Hans Petter Selasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
need to wait for smp tty code.
If this requires changes in the USB serial port drivers
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
This raises the question of why the kernel changes need to be committed
now, and what benefit they bring in the absence of a compatible
userland. Shouldn't the commit happen after both
* Peter Jeremy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080820 09:32] wrote:
On 2008-Aug-19 22:19:14 +0200, Hans Petter Selasky [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
need to wait for smp tty code.
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Yes, and it would be nice if the sound maintainers would try out the new
USB stack, and propose how they want to solve the problems that exist in
the sound system.
This is backwards. If you perceive problems in other subsystems you
should take the lead on engaging with
Hans, here's some final review questions, I've added responses
where I can recall off the top of my head answers, but I need
you to fill in the rest.
Hans, can you please resend the answers to these that you've given
me? Please include short examples why the changes are needed.
I've noted the
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080819 12:47] wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hans, here's some final review questions, I've added responses
where I can recall off the top of my head answers, but I need
you to fill in the rest.
What do the newbus guys say about this? Adding a workaround in
underlying code for a problem caused by your own code is often a signal
that you're not going about it the right way. At the very least the
reason for the special case should be documented here.
I need to think about
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] [080819 12:47] wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Hans, here's some final review questions, I've added responses
where I can recall off the top of my head answers, but I need
you
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Keep in mind that any delay at this point to address review concerns
could have been handled 3 months ago when the commit candidate diff was
first requested, and are usually handled as part of the standard
Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
I am not sure what you mean by this statement, since it can be
interpreted in several ways, some not so friendly.
I mean I need to make another patchset. And that the current patchset will
break the kernel compilation if blindly committed after mpsafetty.
OK,
Hi,
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Keep in mind that any delay at this point to address review concerns
could have been handled 3 months ago when the commit candidate diff was
first requested, and are usually handled as part of the standard
development practises we use in
17 matches
Mail list logo
