Re: [PATCH 0/7] Fat checkstyle patch set (1)

[Cruz Julian Bishop <cruzjbishop@gmail.com>]

On 12/08/12 20:18, OGAWA Hirofumi wrote:
> Cruz Julian Bishop <cruzjbishop@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Hi (and to the mailing list, again).
>>
>> This is a patch series that fixes checkpatch issues in fs/fat.
>>
>> I didn't get to do all of the files, but I'll be sure to come back for
>> them later :)
>>
>> Please let me know if I did something wrong - I'll be sure to take it on
>> for my next patches.
> Is this for -mm tree? Please make sure there is no conflict. 
It's actually based on -next, but I think that's taken over what -mm
was doing in the past, anyway.
>
> Yeah, small patch is preferred, but it should be the logical separation,
> and one patch would be better in this case, IMHO.
>
> Personally, I'm not against this type cleanup only if there is no
> conflict though (i.e. doesn't increase maintain cost). So, if akpm is
> fine to take this, then I'm ok.
Thank you - I'll remember that in the future
>
>> Cruz Julian Bishop (7):
>>   fs/fat: Fix a checkpatch issue in namei_msdos.c
>>   fs/fat: Fix some checkpatch issues in fat.h
>>   fs/fat: Changed indentation of some comments in fat.h
>>   fs/fat: Fix two checkstyle issues in cache.c
>>   fs/fat: Fixes some small checkpatch issues is dir.c
>>   fs/fat: Fix all other checkstyle issues in dir.c
>>   fs/fat: Fix checkpatch issues in fatent.c
> There was one strange new line in a patch. Otherwise,
>
> Acked-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Again, thank you :)