Hi Frans, On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 03:35:05AM -0500, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > [...] > > If you still prefer cross-driver patches, I guess that's better than > not getting contributions from you at all, but then please at least > ensure that checkpatch doesn't complain about your patches, even if > that means fixing more than one issue at once. BTW, all whitespace > fixes can go in the same patch to start with, it makes sense to group > them IMHO. > > > Hi Jean, > > Thanks for your feedback. > I did not really consider things from the perspective of the reviewer and user. > Please ignore this patch. I'll revert back to file specific patches. > Note that I am not planning to clean all files with checkpatch problems, but > I'll probably do a few more inbetween other things (e.g. waiting for a kernel > rebuild). > Please don't feel discouraged. You are doing extremely well for a kernel newbie. I agree with Jean that file specific patches are better for us, but, yes, cross-drive patches are better than none. The only thing we really ask for is that any patches you submit should not have any checkpatch errors or warnings. There is also a script named cleanpatch which is supposed to fix whitespace errors in patches. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
