On Thu, Sep 02, 2021 at 02:03:15PM +0530, Faizel K B wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 08:24:08PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 01, 2021 at 11:43:51PM +0530, Faizel K B wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Faizel K B <faizel.kb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > tools/usb/testusb.c | 14 ++++++++------
> > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tools/usb/testusb.c b/tools/usb/testusb.c
> > > index ee8208b2f946..69c3ead25313 100644
> > > --- a/tools/usb/testusb.c
> > > +++ b/tools/usb/testusb.c
> > > @@ -265,12 +265,6 @@ static int find_testdev(const char *name, const struct stat *sb, int flag)
> > > }
> > >
> > > entry->ifnum = ifnum;
> > > -
> > > - /* FIXME update USBDEVFS_CONNECTINFO so it tells about high speed etc */
> > > -
> > > - fprintf(stderr, "%s speed\t%s\t%u\n",
> > > - speed(entry->speed), entry->name, entry->ifnum);
> > > -
> > > entry->next = testdevs;
> > > testdevs = entry;
> > > return 0;
> > > @@ -299,6 +293,14 @@ static void *handle_testdev (void *arg)
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + status = ioctl(fd, USBDEVFS_GET_SPEED, NULL);
> > > + if (status < 0)
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "USBDEVFS_GET_SPEED failed %d\n", status);
> > > + else
> > > + dev->speed = status;
> > > + fprintf(stderr, "%s speed\t%s\t%u\n",
> > > + speed(dev->speed), dev->name, dev->ifnum);
> > > +
> > > restart:
> > > for (i = 0; i < TEST_CASES; i++) {
> > > if (dev->test != -1 && dev->test != i)
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is the friendly patch-bot of Greg Kroah-Hartman. You have sent him
> > a patch that has triggered this response. He used to manually respond
> > to these common problems, but in order to save his sanity (he kept
> > writing the same thing over and over, yet to different people), I was
> > created. Hopefully you will not take offence and will fix the problem
> > in your patch and resubmit it so that it can be accepted into the Linux
> > kernel tree.
> >
> > You are receiving this message because of the following common error(s)
> > as indicated below:
> >
> > - You did not specify a description of why the patch is needed, or
> > possibly, any description at all, in the email body. Please read the
> > section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the kernel file,
> > Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what is needed in order to
> > properly describe the change.
> >
> > - This looks like a new version of a previously submitted patch, but you
> > did not list below the --- line any changes from the previous version.
> > Please read the section entitled "The canonical patch format" in the
> > kernel file, Documentation/SubmittingPatches for what needs to be done
> > here to properly describe this.
> >
> > If you wish to discuss this problem further, or you have questions about
> > how to resolve this issue, please feel free to respond to this email and
> > Greg will reply once he has dug out from the pending patches received
> > from other developers.
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h's patch email bot
> Is it expected to be a separate patch (version 2)? Since the change is
> only in the updated 'real name' for the 'from' field and 'Signed Off' field
> in response with the previous message from the bot.
Yes, of course, how else would we know this is a newer patch?
thanks,
greg k-h
