On Feb 1, 2008 4:50 AM, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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.

quoted text
> 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
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/