On 12/08/12 20:18, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote: > Cruz Julian Bishop <cruzjbis...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi (and to the mailing list, again). >> >> This is a patch series that fixes checkpatch issues in fs/fat. >> >> I didn't get to do all of the files, but I'll be sure to come back for >> them later :) >> >> Please let me know if I did something wrong - I'll be sure to take it on >> for my next patches. > Is this for -mm tree? Please make sure there is no conflict. It's actually based on -next, but I think that's taken over what -mm was doing in the past, anyway. > > Yeah, small patch is preferred, but it should be the logical separation, > and one patch would be better in this case, IMHO. > > Personally, I'm not against this type cleanup only if there is no > conflict though (i.e. doesn't increase maintain cost). So, if akpm is > fine to take this, then I'm ok. Thank you - I'll remember that in the future > >> Cruz Julian Bishop (7): >> fs/fat: Fix a checkpatch issue in namei_msdos.c >> fs/fat: Fix some checkpatch issues in fat.h >> fs/fat: Changed indentation of some comments in fat.h >> fs/fat: Fix two checkstyle issues in cache.c >> fs/fat: Fixes some small checkpatch issues is dir.c >> fs/fat: Fix all other checkstyle issues in dir.c >> fs/fat: Fix checkpatch issues in fatent.c > There was one strange new line in a patch. Otherwise, > > Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirof...@mail.parknet.co.jp> Again, thank you :)
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/