From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pasmtpB.tele.dk (pasmtpb.tele.dk [80.160.77.98]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73276DDDFC for ; Tue, 15 May 2007 07:12:25 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 23:13:20 +0200 From: Sam Ravnborg To: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kbuild: Add "Section mismatch" warning whitelist for powerpc Message-ID: <20070514211320.GA12094@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <46483FAC.60503@freescale.com> <20070514110636.GB10143@uranus.ravnborg.org> <3DF58590-DFD9-4665-8C47-33F407AAD1E7@kernel.crashing.org> <20070514123046.d75cc170.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20070514123046.d75cc170.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Li Yang , Linus , Linux Kernel List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 12:30:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Li Yang > > > Acked-by: Sam Ravnborg > > I always get confused when a git-tree-owner says "acked-by" against a patch > which falls within his tree's area. An acked-by would mean "I'm OK with > the patch, please apply it". But I'd have expected to see a "thanks, > applied" instead. I have saved the patch so I can apply it if Linus does not do so. My "Acked-by:" was actually mostly to tell Linus that I was OK with the modpost changes although I did not write so in my mail. So if this is not picked up by Linus I will pick up this patch. Sam