On 14.04.2015 00:33, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:15:57AM +0200, Mateusz Kulikowski wrote:
>> I made checkpatch regressions in v1 (that I missed at a time)
>
> As near as I can tell the only difference is that you left some curly
> braces in on patch 8 of first set and removed
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:15:57AM +0200, Mateusz Kulikowski wrote:
> I made checkpatch regressions in v1 (that I missed at a time)
As near as I can tell the only difference is that you left some curly
braces in on patch 8 of first set and removed them on the second set.
It's not worth resending t
On 14.04.2015 00:12, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> I don't know why you are doing a v2. I went back to the original thread
> and I see that no one complained about it.
>
> Since no one replied to v1 thread, then probably Greg is going to apply
> that one first because it is first in his inbox. Greg's i
I don't know why you are doing a v2. I went back to the original thread
and I see that no one complained about it.
Since no one replied to v1 thread, then probably Greg is going to apply
that one first because it is first in his inbox. Greg's inbox has
millions and millions of emails so he won't
New cleanup patchset for rtl8192e. It fixes (mostly) checkpatch.pl warnings.
When applied, checkpatch.pl warning count drops to 34 (from ).
It should apply cleanly to staging-next/testing (c610f7f7) branches.
Series was smoke tested on rtl8192e card vs staging-next:
- Module load/unload
- Inte
