On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 11:55:37 AM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: > On 8/25/21 12:48 PM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:22:16 AM CEST Pavel Skripkin wrote: > >> On 8/25/21 7:35 AM, Fabio M. De Francesco wrote: > >> > Dear Pavel, > >> > > >> > Please note that if and when my patch "Use usb_control_msg_recv / send () in > >> > usbctrl_vendorreq ()" will be merged, "if (res! = len)" will always evaluate 'true' > >> > and usb_read16 () will always return -EIO even if usbctrl_vendorreq () succeeds. > >> > > >> > >> Yep, thank you, but it depends on which series will go in first :) > >> > >> There is a chance, that you will need to clean up this part, if mine > >> will be merged before yours > >> > > > > Ha-ha ... I know that beautiful rule: whoever breaks must fix! > > However there should be another rule which says that > > the old (me) takes precedence over the young (you) :-) > > > > The main problem, that no one knows who is the "old". Greg can take > patches in any order he wants, because they are naturally independent :) > > > We only can say smth like "this one depends on this one" as reply to > patch to inform Greg about the situation. > > > Seriously, thank you so much for your help and the "Reviewed by" > > tag on my work. > > > > You too :) We are doing same job here for the good of community and > kernel itself > Pavel, Dan, Did you really take my "old" vs. "young" precedence rule seriously? I was just kidding, ahead of thanking Pavel for his "Reviewed-by" tag to my patch. That statement deserved no comment. I thought it was clear it was just a joke :) Thanks, Fabio > > > With regards, > Pavel Skripkin >
