On 12/09/14 22:50, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:09:36 +0100 Rob Jones <rob.jo...@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
fs: proc: use __seq_open_private()
fs: proc: use __seq_open_private()
See the problem? We have two different patches, both named the same.
Always another gotcha! :-)
Seriously, does it say anywhere that patch names have to be unique? It
makes perfect sense when it's pointed out but it never occurred to me.
I'll make sure I don't do it again.
I renamed them to
fs/proc/task_nommu.c: use __seq_open_private()
fs/proc/task_mmu.c: use __seq_open_private()
Thank you, much appreciated. I would have been happy to re-submit.
I really don't understand this practice of replacing "/" with ": " in
patch titles. Why not just use the "/"?
I'll do this in future too.
Sigh. So much to learn.
--
Rob Jones
Codethink Ltd
mailto:rob.jo...@codethink.co.uk
tel:+44 161 236 5575
--
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/
