Re: kernel development process question, patch review

2017-03-04 Thread Ozgur Karatas
Hello, I think the list idea is no need for confusion, it is desirable to provide people with a new kernel newbies update to this list with a help and a quick solution to their problems. This is like pre-kernel training. TO and CC already come with the get_maintainer.pl script. TO: Primary re

Re: kernel development process question, patch review

2017-02-21 Thread valdis . kletnieks
On Tue, 21 Feb 2017 12:35:33 +1100, "Tobin C. Harding" said: > If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change > as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that > the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or > is this just noise. Sho

Re: kernel development process question, patch review

2017-02-21 Thread Ozgur Karatas
Hello, I think the list idea is no need for confusion, it is desirable to provide people with a new kernel newbies update to this list with a help and a quick solution to their problems. This is like pre-kernel training. TO and CC already come with the get_maintainer.pl script. TO: Primary re

Re: kernel development process question, patch review

2017-02-20 Thread Greg KH
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:35:33PM +1100, Tobin C. Harding wrote: > If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change > as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that > the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or > is this just noise

kernel development process question, patch review

2017-02-20 Thread Tobin C. Harding
If a reviewer makes a suggestion and one intends on making the change as suggested is it required (normal protocol) to reply stating that the you understand their suggestion and intend on implementing it or is this just noise. Should one simply re send the next version of the patch? Continuing on