Hi Dan,
thanks fot the link. I can't remeber, why and what I wanted to redo.
Maybe there was a complaint about the format of the patch...
In that patch, we also have the topic with the '>> 3', we were
discussing a few days ago!
I'd suggest, not to invest the history any more. I'm ok with preparing a
new patch/new patches, so we can import the fixes.
I also have several improvements for the rf69.c, I'd like to offer.
But I still need to know when to use staging and when to use linux-next.
I don't want to prepare patches for the wrong tree.
Cheers,
Marcus
Am 11.11.2017 um 10:45 schrieb Dan Carpenter:
On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Marcus Wolf wrote:
Hi Dan,
I checked it on my local SVN. You are right. I submitted the code with '&'.
Accodring to a check-in message on my SVN, there was a bugreport end of
July and most probably a patch - either from me, you, Joseph Wright,
Colin King or Julia Lawall, changing '&' to '|'. I guess the patch for
some reason wasn't accepted, but fortunatley I introduced the change to
my SVN.
You sent the patch, but then talked about sending a new version so
that's why it wasn't merged. Greg probably would have merged it as-is
if it hadn't sounded like you were going to redo it.
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/pipermail/driverdev-devel/2017-July/108821.html
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
