On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:31 AM, Linus Walleij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Bjorn Andersson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sun 25 Sep 23:36 PDT 2016, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 2:36 AM, John Crispin <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > The following commit introduced a regression by not properly masking the >>> > calculated value. >>> > >>> > commit 47a01ee9a6c39fe1 ("pinctrl: qcom: Clear all function selection >>> > bits") >> >> Please use the format: Fixes: %h (\"%s\") >> >>> > >>> > Signed-off-by: John Crispin <[email protected]> >>> >>> Now I'm confused how it ever worked.... but agreed, the code looks wrong. >> >> I agree, we should have seen some issues based on this, I presume we >> where "lucky". >> >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> >>> >> >> Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <[email protected]> >> >> @Linus, the corrected patch appeared in v4.8-rc1, would you mind >> including this in a pull for v4.8? > > I would have, had I been more attentive. And you even told me in person to > look at this :/ sorry. > > Now I have the problem that I don't have the original patch in my inbox > at all: it might have been sent to some qcom-specific mailing list?
It hit my (linaro) spam for some reason. Must be a problem between the sending side and how google mail classifies spam.
