From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivo Manca Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/03] i2c-i801: Fix alignment issues Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:43:56 +0200 Message-ID: <48A1F60C.7080505@gmail.com> References: <488762E5.2030109@gmail.com> <20080812101753.592294a3@hyperion.delvare> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080812101753.592294a3-ig7AzVSIIG7kN2dkZ6Wm7A@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: i2c-bounces-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org To: Jean Delvare Cc: Hans de Goede , i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org Jean Delvare wrote: > OK. There's no real need to make this a separate patch. In fact I think > your first patch would be easier to read with these alignment issues > fixed, as it makes it easier to figure out what code paths your changes > are replacing. As a matter of fact, I applied this second patch before > reviewing the first one. > > Hey Jean, First of all, thanks a lot for reviewing. It's very appriciated. I've read and noted your comments, but will reply more detailed to the first patch later. Quite busy lately (new house, graduated => new job).. I thought it was easier (and even required) to seperate the patches this way, but I seem to have been wrong ;p. Anyway, next time, this patch will be incorporated with the first patch. I'll leave the third patch in place, since it's completely unrelated. Thanks, Ivo _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list i2c-GZX6beZjE8VD60Wz+7aTrA@public.gmane.org http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c