Hi Guenter, 2011/12/8 Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Bjoern, > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 05:04:54PM -0500, Bjoern Gerhart wrote: >> Hi Guenter, >> >> so for solving the other issues you mentioned, I'd first apply your >> set of 4 patches on the original f75375s. Then I'd implement my f75387 >> related modifications within your latest review proposals, test the >> resulting binary module on my f75387 hardware and then create a fifth >> patch. >> >> Would that order lead to a valid set of patches? >> > Yes, that would be the best way to proceed, only it is 5 patches by now. > Did I copy you on the last one ? > Yes - today I noticed that I already had received your latest (fifth) f75375s related patch. > If you use git, it should be straightforward to merge your patch on top of mine. > I would have done that, only I had trouble applying yours because it was somehow > corrupted. > I'm not quite familiar with using git yet, so up to now using the classical diff / patch commands for creating and applying patches. It seems that the googlemail web interface inserts line feeds after about 70 characters, which leads to the corrupted patch. I try another mail client for the next patch to send... > Of course, it would also help tremendously if you would fine the time to review > my patches :). > Yeah, I reviewed each of the f75375s related patches. Beside the functionality stuff and improved error handling I noticed some guideline related improvements also. But in fact I could not detect nonconformities or code fussiness, so there's no idea for improvements on my side. > Thanks, > Guenter -- Bjoern Gerhart _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
