It's pointless to post a patch that you know has problems with it (i.e.
it's not even in proper kernel coding style), as it will never be
reviewed or even looked at.
Thanks for the reply, and I'm sorry for the clumsy ask.
I would still appreciate feedback on two points:
1. Is the basic premise reasonable? Is Hans correct in asserting
that an alternate USB over IP module will be considered?
2. Do I correctly understand that there are no circumstances where
copied code can be left unmodified? Even in the case where the copied
code is working, production code, and the changes would be just for style?
Please do the most basic of polite things and fix this up before posting
things.
It is often difficult for a newcomer to know what the polite thing is,
even after studying FAQs and documentation.
I appreciate your patience (and clue bats) as I try to learn.
And really, all in one patch? That too is pretty hard to review...
Yeah. I see the point of pain. I did not see a solution as I formed
the patch, but I'll try harder before resending.
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
