On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 5:58 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 05/18/2011 09:16 PM, Tomer Barletz wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brice DUBOST wrote:
>>> On 18/01/2011 15:42, Tomer Barletz wrote:
> ...
>
> Can you please resend the patch inline with a proper signed-off-by line,
> in o
On 19/05/11 23:01, Sébastien RAILLARD (COEXSI) wrote:
>
> Yes, of course, but I don't find information that can help me to provide the
> correct format.
> Is-there a documentation somewhere that explains how patches must be
> formatted to be correctly tracked?
This should help
[http://www.linuxtv.
50221] [PATCH] Assign same resource_id in
> open_session_response when "resource non-existent"
>
> On 05/18/2011 09:16 PM, Tomer Barletz wrote:
> > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brice DUBOST
> wrote:
> >> On 18/01/2011 15:42, Tomer Barletz wrote:
> >>
On 05/18/2011 09:16 PM, Tomer Barletz wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brice DUBOST wrote:
>> On 18/01/2011 15:42, Tomer Barletz wrote:
>>> Attached a patch for a bug in the lookup_callback function, were in
>>> case of a non-existent resource, the connected_resource_id is not
>>> initial
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Brice DUBOST wrote:
> On 18/01/2011 15:42, Tomer Barletz wrote:
>> Attached a patch for a bug in the lookup_callback function, were in
>> case of a non-existent resource, the connected_resource_id is not
>> initialized and then used in the open_session_response cal
On 18/01/2011 15:42, Tomer Barletz wrote:
> Attached a patch for a bug in the lookup_callback function, were in
> case of a non-existent resource, the connected_resource_id is not
> initialized and then used in the open_session_response call of the
> session layer.
>
Hello
Can you explain what k
