From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] usb: ehci: Add support for SINGLE_STEP_SET_FEATURE test of EHSET Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2013 19:32:23 -0700 Message-ID: <20130809023223.GA4002@kroah.com> References: <20130725220925.GA28634@usblab-sd-06.qualcomm.com> <1376005764-27767-1-git-send-email-jackp@codeaurora.org> <20130809000541.GA26501@kroah.com> <20130809021213.GB28634@usblab-sd-06.qualcomm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.26]:33820 "EHLO out2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S967048Ab3HICbC (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Aug 2013 22:31:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130809021213.GB28634@usblab-sd-06.qualcomm.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Jack Pham Cc: Alan Stern , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, Manu Gautam , Tim Sander , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 07:12:13PM -0700, Jack Pham wrote: > Hi Greg, > > On Thu, Aug 08, 2013 at 05:05:41PM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > I don't seem to have a patch 1/2 from you, did it not get sent somehow? > > Here was patch 1/2: http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=137282127113409&w=2 > which you've applied to usb-next already as commit 1353aa53. I kept the > sequence numbering in the subject as it was in response to the RFC > version I originally sent which was the 2/2. Should I resend this as a > standalone (i.e. with a revised subject tag) instead? Ah, ok. Given that this was about 500+ patches ago in my review queue, I didn't remember it at all :) In the future, when resending something like this, when the 1/2 patch is already accepted, just send it as 1/1, as there is no patch it depends on outstanding. thanks, greg k-h