Em Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:29:39 +0900 Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> escreveu: > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:08:14AM -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm not sure how this patch got applied upstream: > > > > commit b6ea5ef80aa7fd6f4b18ff2e4174930e8772e812 > > Author: Dulshani Gunawardhana <dulshani.gunawardhana89@xxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Sun Oct 20 22:58:28 2013 +0530 > > > > staging:media: Use dev_dbg() instead of pr_debug() > > > > Use dev_dbg() instead of pr_debug() in go7007-usb.c. > > > > Signed-off-by: Dulshani Gunawardhana <dulshani.gunawardhana89@xxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > But, from the custody chain, it seems it was not C/C to linux-media ML, > > doesn't have the driver maintainer's ack[1] and didn't went via my tree. > > It came in through my tree as part of the OPW intern application > process. Ah, OK. I don't mind if you apply those directly, but what makes me a little worried is that at least the final version of the patchset should be c/c to driver/subsystem maintainers for their review and for them to know that the patch will be merged via some other tree, as it might be causing conflicts with their trees. > And yes, sorry, it's broken, I have some follow-on patches to fix this, > but you are right, it should just be reverted for now, very sorry about > that. No problem. > Do you want to do that, or should I? I prefer if you could do it, as I'm still waiting the merge from my tree, and I don't want to cascade another pull request before the original pull requests get handled. In any case, they won't conflict with this, as I don't have any patch for this driver on my tree for 3.13. Thanks! Mauro _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
