On Feb 1, 2008 4:50 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've forwarded these to Andrew, with my signoff and updated comments. > You still need to work on having your patch descriptions match up > to what the patches actually do... >
Thanks a lot, I will try to make it more clearer next time. > Patches 3-5 in this series seem to have a common thread: waiting > until BIT_STAT_SPIF is set before moving to the next step of the > transfer. Next time something similar happens, I'd rather see just > one patch addressing the issue on all code paths ... not three small > patches that only fix it for a few of the code paths. > OK, I will try to merge these same bug fixing into one patch. > Also, two of those three patches describe their updates as fixing > a "regression", or "reverting" the code. Was this a bug that came > in those patches you wanted to merge to 2.6.24? If so, shouldn't > those regression fixes go into the stable series? > Yes, I agree with you. Actually, I intend to send out these bug fixing patch ASAP, but we want to make sure our tester verify this bug was fixing first. Thanks -Bryan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
