Re: Old patches sent via the Mailing list

[Sven Barth <pascaldragon@googlemail.com>]

Am 18.10.2010 08:15, schrieb Mauro Carvalho Chehab:
> 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<pascaldragon@googlemail.com>
>>>    Apr,25 2010: Problem with cx25840 and Terratec Grabster AV400                       http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/94960   Sven Barth<pascaldragon@googlemail.com>
>>
>> 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

Eh... I thought I had superseeded it with the patch from 10th July (mail 
title: [PATCH] Add support for AUX_PLL on cx2583x chips). It included a 
"Signed-of by" from me as well as "Acked by" from Mike and Andy and I 
also excluded the whitespace change ^^

Regards,
Sven