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 Objectindex/Add prefix PCH_

From: Wolfram Sang
Date: Tue Nov 16 2010 - 16:07:37 EST

Next message: Lennart Poettering: "Re: [RFC/RFT PATCH v3] sched: automated per tty task groups"
Previous message: Fabio Comolli: "Re: [PATCH] Revert oom rewrite series"
In reply to: David Miller: "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_"
Next in thread: David Miller: "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_"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:43:25PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 21:39:47 +0100
>
> > Please take into account that this patch got accepted by accident
> > (because the maintainer did not respond properly in time). At that time
> > the driver was incomplete, not ready for mainline and did not even work
> > properly. Therefore it makes little sense to debug or even bisec these
> > changes. Just for that reason I made an exemption and added my
> > "Acked-by". Hope you can share my arguments.
>
> You don't put stupid on top of stupid and justify the latter using
> the former.

Is reverting the incomplete driver an option?

--
Pengutronix e.K. | Wolfram Sang |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature