> On 9 Sep 2019, at 18:15, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 18:12 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> Alright, I'll do that when I get home tonight!
>
> I'm going to assume this is not an actual problem.
>
Oh yeah I'm sorry, I was all busy reading documentations
about the Kernel an
On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 18:12 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> Alright, I'll do that when I get home tonight!
I'm going to assume this is not an actual problem.
> Thanks,
> Sandro V
>
> > On 7 Sep 2019, at 18:08, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:56 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>
Alright, I'll do that when I get home tonight!
Thanks,
Sandro V
> On 7 Sep 2019, at 18:08, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:56 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:44, Joe Perches wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:34 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
On
On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:56 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> > On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:44, Joe Perches wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:34 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> > > On patchwork I entered 'volery' as my username because I didn't know
> > > better, and now checkpatch always complains wh
> On 7 Sep 2019, at 17:44, Joe Perches wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:34 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
>> On patchwork I entered 'volery' as my username because I didn't know better,
>> and now checkpatch always complains when I add 'signed-off-by' with my
>> actual full name.
>
> How d
On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 17:34 +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> On patchwork I entered 'volery' as my username because I didn't know better,
> and now checkpatch always complains when I add 'signed-off-by' with my actual
> full name.
How does checkpatch complain?
There is no connection between patchwo
> On 7 Sep 2019, at 16:52, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
Alright, thanks!
Some stupid other question:
On patchwork I entered 'volery' as my username because I didn't know better,
and now checkpatch always complains when I add 'signed-off-by' with my actual
full name.
How can I avoid that?
Rega
On Sat, Sep 07, 2019 at 04:48:21PM +0200, Sandro Volery wrote:
> > Joe's comments are, of course, correct as well.
> >
> > regards,
> > dan carpenter
> >
>
> I'll take a look at Joe's suggestions too sometime tonight. I'd feel kinda
> bad tho if I just apply his work and send it in?
Don't feel
> On 7 Sep 2019, at 16:39, Dan Carpenter wrote:
>
> You need a subject prefix. It should be something like:
>
> [PATCH] Staging: gasket: Fix parentheses malpractice in apex_driver.c
>
Thanks for the reply! I'll try to do that better for my next patch.
> Generally "Fix" is considered bett
You need a subject prefix. It should be something like:
[PATCH] Staging: gasket: Fix parentheses malpractice in apex_driver.c
Generally "Fix" is considered better style than "Fixed". We aren't
going to care about that in staging, but the patch prefix is mandatory
so you will need to redo it any
On Fri, 2019-09-06 at 20:38 +0200, volery wrote:
> There were some parentheses at the end of lines, which I took care of.
Not every instance of this checkpatch warning should be changed.
This specific instance is because it uses very long identifiers
and really maybe should just be left alone.
>
11 matches
Mail list logo
