From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:23:46 +0000 (GMT) Received: from aux-209-217-49-36.oklahoma.net ([209.217.49.36]:40206 "EHLO proteus.paralogos.com") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S24141426AbYLEQXh (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2008 16:23:37 +0000 Received: from [192.168.236.58] ([217.109.65.213]) by proteus.paralogos.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA27419; Fri, 5 Dec 2008 10:21:24 -0600 Message-ID: <4939557F.1000609@paralogos.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 10:23:27 -0600 From: "Kevin D. Kissell" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ralf Baechle CC: Nick Andrew , Jonathan Corbet , Lucas Woods , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Fix incorrect use of loose in vpe.c References: <20081205155654.GA2765@linux-mips.org> In-Reply-To: <20081205155654.GA2765@linux-mips.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 21532 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: kevink@paralogos.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Ralf Baechle wrote: > On Fri, Dec 05, 2008 at 11:36:54AM +1100, Nick Andrew wrote: > >> From: Nick Andrew >> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:36:54 +1100 >> To: Jonathan Corbet , "Kevin D. Kissell" , >> Lucas Woods , Nick Andrew , >> Ralf Baechle , linux-mips@linux-mips.org >> Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List >> Subject: Fix incorrect use of loose in vpe.c >> >> Fix incorrect use of loose in vpe.c >> >> From: Nick Andrew >> >> It should be 'lose', not 'loose'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Nick Andrew >> > > Thanks, applied. Note that the address you used for Kevin Kissel to post > your patch is no longer valid. > Yeah, but I'm still on the mailing list, so I saw it. I don't "own" that particular module, but for whatever it's worth, I'm OK with fixing the comment - though I'm surprised that checkpatch let a non-canonical multi-line comment block like that go by. ;o) Regards, Kevin K.