On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 04:02:25PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 01:37:27PM -0700, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > Yes, I'll do that as part of my normal tree submission process. > Actually, ensuring correct merge order won't be enough, will it? That > doesn't magically fixes that the function's signature actually changed. > Shouldn't the update of the sysfs_get_dirent() call be fixed within the > same patch that updates the sysfs_get_dirent() signature? They're applied in different trees so they're both OK by themselves, it's the merge that brings the two together that needs to do the fixup.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
