From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1760772AbYD3GX7@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1760772AbYD3GX7 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:23:59 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755610AbYD3GXv
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:23:51 -0400
Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:37459 "EHLO mx1.suse.de"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756059AbYD3GXu (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 30 Apr 2008 02:23:50 -0400
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:03:59 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de>
To: SL Baur <steve@xemacs.org>
Cc: 12o3l@tiscali.nl, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: patch
	usb-mos7840-test-and-propagate-set_uart_reg-return-value.patch
	added to gregkh-2.6 tree
Message-ID: <20080430060359.GB10457@suse.de>
References: <4806CF18.2050403@tiscali.nl> <12094267913945@kroah.org> <ed10ee420804282331x70acd75bv924767dc4cc1fdde@mail.gmail.com> <20080429065133.GA8708@suse.de> <ed10ee420804290033v256238bas1f89542495d5b6b4@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ed10ee420804290033v256238bas1f89542495d5b6b4@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:33:39AM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> On 4/28/08, Greg KH <gregkh@suse.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:31:07PM -0700, SL Baur wrote:
> 
> > Does that mean that the original patch is invalid?  Or just that your
> >  question was never answered?
> 
> I think there are more of the same issues that the patch
> addressed in the same file and the patcher never responded
> back about that.

But again, is the current patch somehow not valid?

thanks,

greg k-h