Jiri Pirko <jpirko@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
>Thu, May 20, 2010 at 02:07:41AM CEST, fubar@us.ibm.com wrote:
[...]
quoted text
>>	This chunk doesn't apply to net-next-2.6 because your context
>>doesn't match; it looks like you've removed the variable "found" in your
>>"before" source.  On closer inspection, "found" isn't actually used
>>meaningfully, so I'm guessing you removed it in a prior patch but didn't
>>submit that patch.
>>
>>	If that's the case, could you repost the whole series, with
>>sequence numbers?
>
>I don't think that's necessary for now. The patch removing found was posted as a
>first one:
>http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/52795/
>
>I tried it several times. Patches are cleanly applicable in order I posted it.

	Ok, I tracked down a copy (not sure where mine went).  Sequence
numbers do help in general, though, as a set of email messages aren't
always delivered in the same order they're sent.

	In any event, the patches all look ok to me (they do apply
cleanly and compile, now that I have the complete set), but none of them
are bug fixes, and should therefore probably wait until net-next
reopens.  

	So, for whenever the tree is open:

Signed-off-by: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@us.ibm.com>

	-J

---
	-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@us.ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html