Guenter,
Comments are below
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 5:37 PM, Guenter Roeck
<guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Did you consider naming this file include/linux/it87.h as suggested ?
> I thought that was a goodd idea.
>
This does seem to be a good idea. I had some other thoughts about
where to place the
it87_lock.c file. One thought was to move the lock into the
drivers/mfd directory and
completely decouple the lock from the watchdog or the hwmon
directories. The mfd/Kconfig
would contain the IT87_LOCK.
> When you send out new versions of your patch set, it would be prudent
> to list the patch version, as well as the changes made compared to previous
I am new at this. Exactly where do you list the patch version. I put
v2 in the subject line.
The only difference between the 2 patch sets was that each of the patches has a
more verbose body section explaining the contents of the patch and
each of the sub patch
Subject line reflected what was happening in that sub patch. I also
made sure I had the
"In-Reply-To" entry in the patches.
Where in the patch do you discuss the changes made with respect to the
previous patch.
When I send out the next set of patches do I have to send out the
entire patch set marked as v3.
> versions of your patch. See Documents/SubmittingPatches, rule #2.
>
> Thanks,
> Guenter
--
Regards
Nat Gurumoorthy AB6SJ
_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
