From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Guenter Roeck Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 21:47:34 +0000 Subject: Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] f75375s: added Fintek f75387 support Message-Id: <20111209214734.GB19801@ericsson.com> List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: lm-sensors@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 03:12:50PM -0500, Bj=F6rn Gerhart wrote: > Hi Guenter, >=20 > 2011/12/8 Guenter Roeck : > > Hi Bjoern, > >=20 > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 05:04:54PM -0500, Bjoern Gerhart wrote: > >> Hi Guenter, > >>=20 > >> 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. > >>=20 > >> Would that order lead to a valid set of patches? > >>=20 > > Yes, that would be the best way to proceed, only it is 5 patches by now. > > Did I copy you on the last one ? > >=20 > Yes - today I noticed that I already had received your latest (fifth) f75= 375s related patch. >=20 > > 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 wa= s somehow > > corrupted. > >=20 > I'm not quite familiar with using git yet, so up to now using the classic= al diff / patch commands for creating and applying patches. It seems that t= he googlemail web interface inserts line feeds after about 70 characters, w= hich leads to the corrupted patch. I try another mail client for the next p= atch to send... >=20 > > Of course, it would also help tremendously if you would fine the time t= o review > > my patches :). > >=20 > Yeah, I reviewed each of the f75375s related patches. Beside the function= ality stuff and improved error handling I noticed some guideline related im= provements also. But in fact I could not detect nonconformities or code fus= siness, so there's no idea for improvements on my side. >=20 Hi Bjoern, things are a bit more formal in Linux land. After you reviewed a patch, and you are happy with it, reply to it by adding Acked-by: Your Name or Reviewed-by: Your Name right under the Signed-off: line. Before you do that, read Documentation/SubmittingPatches, chapter 13 (using= Acked-by)=20 and chapter 14 (using Reviewed-by) to understand what it means. Thanks, Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors