On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:32:06 +0100
Richard MUSIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> + if (chip->vendor.release)
> >> + chip->vendor.release(dev);
> >> +
> >> + /* it *should* be: chip->release != NULL */
> >
> > And that one's actually wrong in the context of kernel coding practices.
> >
Gentlemen,
I am sorry for confusion, really do not have my day today :(.
In the last patch I mistakenly removed call to original release.
Now it should be OK.
Richard
>From 208991bcea7034202b9504c2e26c9b2edbf6e31d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Richard Musil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov
Hello Andrew,
I am including 2nd version of the patch, slightly modified according
to your comments. See inline my response:
On 20.11.2007 7:37, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:14:50 +0200 Richard MUSIL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> The patch follows even more below.
>
> Thanks.
3 matches
Mail list logo