From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rpjday@crashcourse.ca (Robert P. J. Day) Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 15:30:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Checkpatch Patches In-Reply-To: <5418851E.3040104@surriel.com> References: <541830AB.6020104@gmail.com> <41030.1410877181@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <54187326.2090200@surriel.com> <11625.1410889166@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <5418851E.3040104@surriel.com> Message-ID: To: kernelnewbies@lists.kernelnewbies.org List-Id: kernelnewbies.lists.kernelnewbies.org On Tue, 16 Sep 2014, Rik van Riel wrote: > Nick, > > this is a chance for you to prove the nay-sayers wrong (or right). > > When re-posting your patch, you can include information on what tips > you got on how to improve the patch, and how you applied that > information in the new version of the patch. > > This is a good idea for anybody resubmitting a changed patch, > because it tells other reviewers what changes were made, why, and > who pointed out the idea for the change. my god, rik, you're adorable. :-) i predict that, despite what i've posted *twice*, nick will describe as an "error" what is simply a checkpatch coding style *warning*. let's watch ... rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================