On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 10:52:00AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 07:42:28PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 07:42:12PM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 05:15:41PM +0100, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:
>>This patch fixes checkpatch.pl warning:
>>WARNING: Prefer ether_addr_copy() over memcpy() if the Ethernet
>>addresses are __aligned(2)
>>
>>current_net_addr and permanent_net_addr members of vnt_private alignment
>>is changed to at last 16 bits so that ether_addr_copy can be safely used
>>on them.
>>
>>buf->data is of type ieee80211_cts which is already properly aligned.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Adamski <k@xxxxxxxx>
>>---
>>drivers/staging/vt6656/device.h | 4 ++--
>>drivers/staging/vt6656/main_usb.c | 3 ++-
>>drivers/staging/vt6656/rxtx.c | 4 ++--
>>3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
>Doesn't apply to my tree :(
Strange, I was trying to apply this on your tree to fix any conflicts but
apparently you already has this patch in your staging-testing branch. And as
far as I can tell I only sent it once to you.
I think you sent it lots of times, if it's there already, don't worry
about it :)
I've send two other patches for this driver twise but this one only
once. But that's not imporant. While we're at this, if I ever feel like
I should resend the patch because it was lost (I promise I will wait
much longer:)), what would be the best way to mark it as resent? Should
it be v2 even though it wasn't really changed? Or write it in comment
after "---", or maybe some other way? That's the only thing not
explained in your "Write and Submit your first Linux kernel Patch" talk.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
