On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 05:14:32PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 02:30:34PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 01:29:28PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 05:18:10PM +0100, Luis de Bethencourt wrote: > > > > Fixing 80 character limit warnings in octeon/ethernet-rx.c > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Luis de Bethencourt <luis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- > > > > 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c > > > > index 1789a12..e387eb1 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/octeon/ethernet-rx.c > > > > @@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ static inline int cvm_oct_check_rcv_error(cvmx_wqe_t *work) > > > > int interface = cvmx_helper_get_interface_num(work->ipprt); > > > > int index = cvmx_helper_get_interface_index_num(work->ipprt); > > > > union cvmx_gmxx_rxx_frm_ctl gmxx_rxx_frm_ctl; > > > > + > > > > > > Do this in a separate patch. > > > > Will do within the hour. > > > > :( You should always wait overnight or a few hours before sending a > patch. It's not a race. Go slowly. > > regards, > dan carpenter > Is the wait so people have more time to review the patch as it is? I wanted to show my interest by keeping up with reviews but now that you mention that, it makes sense. I screwed up and didn't submit the version 3 of this patch with [01/02] for the character limit warnings. Will wait, since the patch for the empty lines after variable declarations needs to be applied on-top of this. I will wait until that one is accepted or rejected before rebasing and submitting the second patch. Sorry about this. Thanks for all the help :) Luis _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
