Sorry for joining this thread late.
Patches 1-3 are fine with me.
/james
Ladislav Michl wrote:
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per
Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them?
Here it is (I'm sorry a
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 04:36:29PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Oops, you forgot to add a Signed-off-by: line for every patch, as per
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Care to redo them?
Here it is (I'm sorry about that).
Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking.
Signed-off-by
Hi Ladislav,
> Use i2c_transfer to send message, so we get proper bus locking.
Looks all OK to me, let alone the lack of Signed-off-by line, as Greg
underlined elsewhere. Please resent the patches with the Signed-off-by
line after I finish reviewing them.
Thanks,
--
Jean Delvare
-
To unsubscrib
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 01:17:58AM +0200, Ladislav Michl wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type
> > of individual change. It's ok to say "patch 3 requires you to have
> > applied patches 1 and 2"
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 02:18:39PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Jean's point is that you should send an individual patch for each type
> of individual change. It's ok to say "patch 3 requires you to have
> applied patches 1 and 2" and so on. Please split this up better.
Here it is...
Use i2c_transfe
5 matches
Mail list logo