On Fri, 13 Mar 2015, Kalle Valo wrote: > Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Return type of wait_for_completion_timeout is unsigned long not int. > > An appropriately named unsigned long is added and the assignments fixed up. > > Rather than returning 0 (timeout) or a more or less random remaining time > > (completion success) this return 0 or 1 which also resolves the type of the > > functions being int. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx> > > Why does patch 2 in this patchset have RFC in the title but patches 1 > and 3 not? That just makes me confused, I can't tell what you want me to > do with the patches. Normally I just drop all patches (or patchsets) > which have RFC, and that's what I'm going to do now. > > To save everyone's time, when submitting something please state clearly > what's your intention. > ok - was simply unsure about the proposed change and 1 was a trivial cleanup (which should have been sent out as a seperate patch and not part of a series - my mistake) Will fix this up and repost it. sorry for the screwup - no intent to wast anybodies time. thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
