On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:03:34AM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:06:49PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 03:02:37PM +0200, Peter Karlsson wrote:
> > > On 2015-06-22 06:29, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > > which tree have you been using?
> > > > Greg will have three staging tree, use staging-testing
> > >
> > > I have used linux-next tree :/
> > well, I am now confused why linux-next is not having this struct.
> > at line 415 of drivers/staging/ft1000/ft1000-usb/ft1000_debug.c
> > struct timeval tv; is there in staging-next. And today's linux-next
> > has merged staging-next. Then how that struct timeval is not there in
> > linux-next ?
>
> I was doing a bisect to see why the files are differing in staging-next
> and linux-next. And it turns out to be:
> 8b37bf430656 ("staging: ft1000: Replace timeval and time_t with time64_t")
>
> which didn't go through the staging tree.
>
It's going through Arnd's tree since he does time stuff. He should have
sent it for an Ack or something. Maybe he is planning to do that later.
The patch is very old.
Not a big deal?
regards,
dan carpenter
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
