I've forwarded these to Andrew, with my signoff and updated comments. You still need to work on having your patch descriptions match up to what the patches actually do...
Patches 3-5 in this series seem to have a common thread: waiting until BIT_STAT_SPIF is set before moving to the next step of the transfer. Next time something similar happens, I'd rather see just one patch addressing the issue on all code paths ... not three small patches that only fix it for a few of the code paths. Also, two of those three patches describe their updates as fixing a "regression", or "reverting" the code. Was this a bug that came in those patches you wanted to merge to 2.6.24? If so, shouldn't those regression fixes go into the stable series? - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
