On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:49:10 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 05:27:34PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:09:56 +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > > - shall this better go via the i2c-tree? > > > This seems simpler, yes. I don't think subsystem or driver maintainers > > need to be bothered with what is really only a cleanup. > > What about those subsystems where the maintainers applied the patch from > the first round (adding the explicit set to NULL where it had been > missing)? I don't think we can ask them to revert, as they won't like it (except for the few of working with quilt). So the best way is to let them push the change upstream and amend it right after. Not ideal, but I can't propose anything better (short of a time travelling machine, that is.) -- Jean Delvare -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
