Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Mobile security processor driver

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Greg KH
Date: Thursday, April 29, 2010 - 2:17 pm

A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 01:48:25PM -0700, Epshteyn, Eugene wrote:

Then say that :)

And why would Mark need someone else to do that?


Then say that :)


Isn't Intel the "vendor" here?  If not, why not have them directly
interact with us, you do not want to be put into the middle, it only
slows things down for everyone and is not how Linux kernel development
works.


Yes, that TODO list is quite large already, fix up all of those and then
ask for more review please.  Reviewing code you know needs lots of work
isn't all that nice to do.

So again, please fix all of that first, get those changes accepted, and
then we can talk :)

thanks,

greg k-h
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[RFC PATCH 1/4] Mobile security processor driver, Epshteyn, Eugene, (Wed Apr 28, 4:10 pm)
RE: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Mobile security processor driver, Epshteyn, Eugene, (Thu Apr 29, 1:48 pm)
Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] Mobile security processor driver, Greg KH, (Thu Apr 29, 2:17 pm)