> >> Didn't you got already comment for this patch? How did you implement it? > >> > >> Also, I asked you multiple times: > >> > >> Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary > >> people and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an > >> older kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure > >> you base your patches on recent Linux kernel. > >> > >> I don't understand why you ignore this. > >> > >> NAK, patch is not correct. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Krzysztof > >> > > > > Thank you for your patient guidance. > > Because I'm not familiar with the review process and didn't use > scripts/get_maintainers.pl properly in the initial email thread. > > Therefore, this series of errors was caused. Sorry for the confusion. > > Now I know how to use the script properly. > > After correcting the maintainer's suggestion, I'll restart a new email thread > and review again. > > Did you respond to feedback you got about the property? Did reviewer agreed > on your view after your feedback? > > If not, then why resending this patch? > 1. Because you said, "This patch is incorrect". And I won't be cc'ing the proper maintainer. I think I need to restart a new review process. 2. Modify the previous reviewer's comments and fix the dtschema validation error. Am I misunderstanding what you mean? Can I keep reviewing this patch on this email thread until consensus is reached with the reviewers? Thanks, Stanley
