On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 02:49:28PM +0200, Christian Gromm wrote: > On Fri, 23 Sep 2016 14:08:51 +0200 > Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 11:37:07AM +0200, Christian Gromm wrote: > > > This patch allows to call the write() function for synchronous and > > > isochronous channels with buffers of any size. The AIM simply waits > > > for data to fill up the MOST buffer object according to the network > > > interface controller specification for streaming channels, before > > > it submits the buffer to the HDM. > > > > > > The new behavior is backward compatible to the old applications, > > > since all known applications needed to fill the buffer completely > > > anyway. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Gromm <christian.gromm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > > > > v2: Since the previous patch of this series has beed dropped, this > > > patch needed some adaptation work to match the source tree again. > > > > Where are the 5 other patches in this series? > > You dropped one and added four of them. This is the remaining one > that couldn't be applied. > > Why would I resend patches that have already been added? You shouldn't, but why would you resend a patch and claim it is the middle of a series of patches that are not sent at the same time? Remember, I have the short-term memory of a squirrel, I have no idea what was previously sent. You wouldn't either if you dealt with as many patches as I get... thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
