From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:8383 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751299Ab0JRGPz (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Oct 2010 02:15:55 -0400 Message-ID: <4CBBE5F6.6030201@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 04:15:18 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andy Walls CC: LMML , "Igor M. Liplianin" , Manu Abraham , Jean-Francois Moine , Jarod Wilson , Richard Zidlicky , Antti Palosaari , Sven Barth , Patrick Boettcher , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Henrik Kurelid , Hans de Goede Subject: Re: Old patches sent via the Mailing list References: <4CBB689F.1070100@redhat.com> <1287358617.2320.12.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> In-Reply-To: <1287358617.2320.12.camel@morgan.silverblock.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: Sender: Em 17-10-2010 21:36, Andy Walls escreveu: > On Sun, 2010-10-17 at 19:20 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I did a large effort during this weekend to handle the maximum amount of patches, in order to have them >> ready for 2.6.37. While there are still some patches marked as NEW at patchwork, and a few pending pull >> requests (mostly related to more kABI changes), there are still a list of patches that are marked as >> Under review. Except for 4 patches from me, related to Doc (that I'm keeping in this list just to remind >> me that I'll need to fix them when I have some time - just some automation stuff at DocBook), all other >> patches marked as Under review are stuff that I basically depend on others. >> >> The last time I sent this list, I was about to travel, and I may have missed some comments, or maybe I >> may just forgot to update. But I suspect that, for the list bellow, most of them are stuff where the >> driver maintainer just forgot at limbo. >> >> >From the list of patches under review, we have: >> >> Waiting for new patch, signed, from Sven Barth >> Apr,25 2010: Problem with cx25840 and Terratec Grabster AV400 http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/94960 Sven Barth > > Sven, > > We need a "Signed-off-by: " for your submitted patch: > > http://www.linuxtv.org/wiki/index.php/Development:_Submitting_Patches#Sign_your_work > > Note, your patch has an obvious, unintentional white space change for > "if (std == V4L2_STD_NTSC_M_JP)", so could you fix that up and send a > new signed off version? > > > Mauro, > > This patch makes obvious sense to me: don't perform audio register > updates on a chip that doesn't have an audio processing block. Sven's > approach was based on my recommended approach, after his initial > discovery on how to get his audio working. > > Do we really need an S.O.B for something that appears to be common > sense, and wouldn't have been implemented any other way, even if I had > implemented it? The original patch were in the middle of a discussion, no proper description, bad whitespacing, etc. It is better to let the patch author to fix those issues, as they learn more about how to submit a patch. Anyway, I agree with you, the patch is obvious, and can proceed without the SOB. I did the usual CodingStyle fixups, put part of your above comment as the patch description, together with your ack and moved it forward. One patch less on my queue ;) Cheers, Mauro